Advertisement

Robotic Microsurgery

  • Sijo J. Parekattil
  • Marc S. Cohen
Chapter

Abstract

The use of robotic assistance during microsurgical procedures is currently being explored in the treatment of male infertility and patients with chronic testicular pain. Whether the addition of this technology would allow a corresponding improvement in outcomes as when the operating microscope was introduced in microsurgery is yet to be seen. This chapter covers new robotic microsurgical applications such as: vasectomy reversal, varicocelectomy, denervation of the spermatic cord for chronic testicular pain, microsurgical vascular anastomosis, testicular sperm extraction, and nerve graft placement during robotic radical prostatectomy. Preliminary animal studies appear to show an advantage in terms of improved operative efficiency and improved surgical outcomes. Preliminary human clinical studies appear to support these findings. The use of robotic assistance during robotic microsurgical vasovasostomy appears to decrease operative duration and significantly improve early postoperative sperm counts compared to the pure microsurgical technique. As with any new technology, long-term prospective controlled trials are necessary to assess the true cost benefit ratio for robotic-assisted microsurgery. The preliminary findings are promising, but further evaluation is warranted.

Keywords

Vasovasostomy Vasoepididymostomy Robotic Vasectomy Reversal Denervation or spermatic cord Neurolysis Vascular anastomosis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. Hany Atalah, Katy Lyall, Andrew Hunt, David Regan, Dr. Rachana Suchdev, Intuitive Surgical Inc., and Vascular Technology Inc. for their continued support in the pursuit and refinement of robotic microsurgical techniques and tools.

References

  1. 1.
    Silber SJ. Microsurgery in clinical urology. Urology. 1975;6(2):150-153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berger RE. Triangulation end-to-side vasoepididy­mostomy. J Urol. 1998;159(6):1951-1953.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chan PT, Li PS, Goldstein M. Microsurgical vasoepididymostomy: a prospective randomized study of 3 intussusception techniques in rats. J Urol. 2003;169(5):1924-1929.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fogdestam I, Fall M. Microsurgical end-to-end and end-to-side epididymovasostomy to correct occlusive azoospermia. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1983;17(2):137-140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marmar JL. Modified vasoepididymostomy with simultaneous double needle placement, tubulotomy and tubular invagination. J Urol. 2000;163(2):483-486.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marmar JL, Kim Y. Subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy: a technical critique and statistical analysis of semen and pregnancy data. J Urol. 1994;152(4):1127-1132.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Owen ER. Microsurgical vasovasostomy: a reliable vasectomy reversal. ANZ J Surg. 1977;47(3):305-309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schlegel PN. Testicular sperm extraction: microdissection improves sperm yield with minimal tissue excision. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(1):131-135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schultheiss D, Denil J. History of the microscope and development of microsurgery: a revolution for reproductive tract surgery. Andrologia. 2002;34(4):234-241.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Silber SJ. Microscopic vasoepididymostomy: specific microanastomosis to the epididymal tubule. Fertil Steril. 1978;30(5):565-571.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thomas AJ Jr. Vasoepididymostomy. Urol Clin North Am. 1987;14(3):527-538.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldstein M. Microspike approximator for vasovasostomy. J Urol. 1985;134(1):74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goldstein M, Li PS, Matthews GJ. Microsurgical vasovasostomy: the microdot technique of precision suture placement. J Urol. 1998;159(1):188-190.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marmar JL, Sharlip I, Goldstein M. Results of vasovasostomy or vasoepididymostomy after failed percutaneous epididymal sperm aspirations. J Urol. 2008;179(4):1506-1509.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ahmed I, Rasheed S, White C, Shaikh NA. The incidence of post-vasectomy chronic testicular pain and the role of nerve stripping (denervation) of the spermatic cord in its management. Br J Urol. 1997;79(2):269-270.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Devine CJ Jr, Schellhammer PF. The use of microsurgical denervation of the spermatic cord for orchialgia. Trans Am Assoc Genitourin Surg. 1978;70:149-151.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Levine LA. Microsurgical denervation of the spermatic cord. J Sex Med. 2008;5(3):526-529.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Levine LA, Matkov TG. Microsurgical denervation of the spermatic cord as primary surgical treatment of chronic orchialgia. J Urol. 2001;165(6 Pt 1):1927-1929.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levine LA, Matkov TG, Lubenow TR. Microsurgical denervation of the spermatic cord: a surgical alternative in the treatment of chronic orchialgia. J Urol. 1996;155(3):1005-1007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Strom KH, Levine LA. Microsurgical denervation of the spermatic cord for chronic orchialgia: long-term results from a single center. J Urol. 2008;180(3):949-953.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thiel DD, Winfield HN. Robotics in urology: past, present, and future. J Endourol. 2008;22(4):825-830.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kuang W, Shin PR, Matin S, Thomas AJ Jr. Initial evaluation of robotic technology for microsurgical vasovasostomy. J Urol. 2004;171(1):300-303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kuang W, Shin PR, Oder M, Thomas AJ Jr. Robotic-assisted vasovasostomy: a two-layer technique in an animal model. Urology. 2005;65(4):811-814.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schiff J, Li PS, Goldstein M. Robotic microsurgical vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy: a prospective randomized study in a rat model. J Urol. 2004;171(4):1720-1725.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schiff J, Li PS, Goldstein M. Robotic microsurgical vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy in rats. Int J Med Robot. 2005;1(2):122-126.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schoor RA, Ross L, Niederberger C. Robotic assisted microsurgical vasal reconstruction in a model system. World J Urol. 2003;21(1):48-49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fleming C. Robot-assisted vasovasostomy. Urol Clin North Am. 2004;31(4):769-772.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Parekattil S, Cohen M, Vieweg J. Human robotic assisted bilateral vasoepididymostomy and ­vasovasostomy procedures: initial safety and efficacy trial. Proc SPIE. 2009;7161:71611L.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Parekattil S, Atalah H, Cohen M. Video technique for human robotic assisted microsurgical vasovasostomy. J Endourol. 2009;24(4):511-514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Corcione F, Esposito C, Cuccurullo D, et al. Advantages and limits of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: preliminary experience. Surg Endosc. 2005;19(1):117-119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chen XF, Zhou LX, Liu YD, et al. Comparative analysis of three different surgical approaches to varicocelectomy. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2009;15(5):413-416.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cayan S, Shavakhabov S, Kadioglu A. Treatment of palpable varicocele in infertile men: a meta-analysis to define the best technique. J Androl. 2009;30(1):33-40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Al-Said S, Al-Naimi A, Al-Ansari A, et al. Varico­celectomy for male infertility: a comparative study of open, laparoscopic and microsurgical approaches. J Urol. 2008;180(1):266-270.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Al-Kandari AM, Shabaan H, Ibrahim HM, Elshebiny YH, Shokeir AA. Comparison of outcomes of different varicocelectomy techniques: open inguinal, laparoscopic, and subinguinal microscopic varicocelectomy: a randomized clinical trial. Urology. 2007;69(3):417-420.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shu T, Taghechian S, Wang R. Initial experience with robot-assisted varicocelectomy. Asian J Androl. 2008;10(1):146-148.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Oliveira RG, Camara C, Alves Jde M, Coelho RF, Lucon AM, Srougi M. Microsurgical testicular denervation for the treatment of chronic testicular pain initial results. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2009;64(5):393-396.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cocuzza M, Pagani R, Coelho R, Srougi M, Hallak J. The systematic use of intraoperative vascular Doppler ultrasound during microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy improves precise identification and preservation of testicular blood supply. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:2396-2399. Epub Mar 5 2009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sijo J. Parekattil
    • 1
  • Marc S. Cohen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of UrologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyUniversity of Florida Affiliated HospitalsGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations