Port Placement in Robotic Urologic Surgery

  • Chad R. Ritch
  • Ketan K. BadaniEmail author


In 2001, the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) was approved for use in urology ( and the technological improvements have translated to a paradigm shift, especially in the field of urologic oncology. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) has quickly become the minimally invasive surgical procedure of choice at most centers of excellence and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical and partial nephrectomy (RALPN/RALN) and cystectomy (RALC) are also increasing in numbers. The impetus for the robotic approach to surgical management is based on a combined need for minimally invasive treatment with optimal surgical outcomes. Historically, conventional laparoscopy has been at the forefront of minimally invasive surgical technique and the fundamental principles of robotic surgery are founded upon those used in laparoscopic surgery. However, the advanced technology utilized in robotics has required modifications of these techniques to capitalize on the enhanced capabilities of robotic surgery. Whereas laparoscopic surgery is limited by counterintuitive movement, 2D visualization, and a decreased range of motion, robotic surgery offers 3D visualization, seven degrees of freedom, and is a natural reflection of the surgeon’s movement. Robotic surgery therefore offers enhanced capabilities for visualization, surgical dexterity, and exposure to the surgical field but these are ultimately dependent on the proper placement of the ports used for access. This chapter will provide a comprehensive overview of the standard techniques for access and port placement in a number of major robotic urologic procedures focusing on the nuances of prostate, renal, bladder, and female robotic urologic surgery.


Robotic Surgery Partial Nephrectomy Rectus Muscle Anterior Superior Iliac Spine Veress Needle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Gomella L, Pietrow P, Albala D. Basic laparoscopy. In: Graham S, Glenn J, Keane T, eds. Glenn’s Urological Surgery. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins; 2004:113.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahmad G, Duffy J, Phillips K, et al. Laparoscopic entry techniques. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;16(2):CD006583.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Collins S, Lehman D, McDougall E, et al. AUA Handbook of Laparoscopic and Robotic Fundamentals. 1st ed. Linthicum, MD: American Urological Association; 2007.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mikhail A, Stockton B, Orvieto M, et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in overweight and obese patients. Urology. 2006;67:774–779.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hemal A. Robotic and laparoscopic radical cystectomy in the management of bladder cancer. Curr Urol Rep. 2009;10:45–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Menon M, Hemal A, Tewari A. Robotic assisted radical cystectomy and urinary diversion in female patients: technique with preservation of the uterus and vagina. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;198:386–393.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beecken W, Wolfram M, Engl T, et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy and intra-abdominal formation of an orthotopic ileal neobladder. Eur Urol. 2003;44:337–339.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Benway B, Wang A, Cabello J, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy with sliding-clip renorrhaphy: technique and outcomes. Eur Urol. 2009;55:592–599.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rogers C, Singh A, Blatt A, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors: surgical technique. Eur Urol. 2008;53:514–523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaul S, Laungani R, Sarle R, et al. da Vinci-assisted robotic partial nephrectomy: technique and results at a mean of 15 months of follow-up. Eur Urol. 2007;51:186–192.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Badani K, Hemal A, Fumo M, et al. Robotic extended pyelolithotomy for treatment of renal calculi: a feasibility study. World J Urol. 2006;24:198–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mufarrij P, Woods M, Shah O, et al. Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience. J Urol. 2008;180:1391–1396.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reddy K, Malik TG. Short-term and long-term follow-up of abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: initial experience in a district general hospital. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;22:532–536.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Benson J, Lucente V, McClellan E. Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: a prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;176:1418–1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ostrzenski A. Laparoscopic colposuspension for total vaginal prolapse. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1996;55:147–152.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Akl M, Long J, Giles D, et al. Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve. Surg Endosc. 2009;21:2390–2394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Elliott D, Krambeck A, Chow G. Long-term results of robotic assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high grade vaginal vault prolapse. J Urol. 2006;176:655–659.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer London 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyColumbia University Medical Center – New York PresbyterianNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Columbia University Medical Center/NY Presbyterian HospitalNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations