Robotic Surgical Approach in Limited Access Anatomical Areas

Conference paper
Part of the Mechanisms and Machine Science book series (Mechan. Machine Science, volume 38)

Abstract

The implementation of robotic surgery in the urological practice was extremely fast due to the advantages offered by this technology, advantages that outweigh the difficulties of the surgical techniques. Some of the challenges of the urological surgeries are the result of the limited access areas. Moreover, the surgery of the male pelvis (which is very narrow) is very difficult because the surgical gestures that are of great importance for the functional outcomes of the patient (urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction) are performed in a limited access area. Also, the surgery of the retroperitoneum implies access in a narrow space in order to perform plastic or reconstructive interventions that involve the great abdominal blood vessels. Our aim was to evaluate the robotic surgical approach when performing urologic surgeries in limited access areas like the pelvis (radical prostatectomy, radical cystectomy) and the retroperitoneum (partial nephrectomy, radical nephrectomy, pyeloplasty). From a technical point of view, we evaluated the positioning of the trocars, the alignment between the trocars for the camera and for the instruments, the positioning of the trocar for the assistant surgeon, the conflicts between the robotic arms or between the robotic arms and the assistant surgeon’s instruments. The technical aspects were reported to the perioperative and postoperative parameters in order to evaluate the way in which the technical difficulties influence the surgical technique. For the retroperitoneal approach, we used 5 trocars with a particular type of positioning, developed at the Robotic Surgery Center in Cluj-Napoca. The final aspect of the positioning of the robotic trocars is triangular shaped, which offers a generous movement space for them, but also for the assistant surgeon. There were no conflicts between the robotic arms and none of surgeries required conversion. The hospital stay varied depending on the complexity of the procedure. The robotic surgery has well-known technical advantages, but it also shows improvement for the access in limited areas, like the male pelvis and the retroperitoneum. Using the robotic approach and a well studied trocar positioning, the surgeon is able to perform very complex maneuvers without difficulties due to the limited access and without altering the perioperative and postoperative outcomes.

Keywords

Robotic surgery Robotic approach Robotic cystectomy Robotic pediatric surgery 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper was realized within the Partnership Programme in priority domains—PN-II, which runs with the financial support of MEN-UEFISCDI, Project no. 247/2014.

References

  1. 1.
    Casale P (2008) Robotic pediatric urology. Exp Rev Med Dev 5:59–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chan ES, Yee CH, Lo KL, Chan CK, Hou SM, Ng CF (2013) Side-docking technique for robot-assisted urologic pelvic surgery. Urology 82(6):1300–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Crisan N, Neiculescu C, Matei DV, Coman I (2013) Robotic retroperitoneal approach: a new technique for the upper urinary tract and adrenal gland. Int J Med Robot 9(4):492–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ghani KR1, Porter J, Menon M, Rogers C (2014) Robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy: a step-by-step guide. BJU Int doi: 10.1111/bju.12709 [Epub ahead of print]
  5. 5.
    Giri S, Sarkar DK (2012) Current status of robotic surgery. Indian J Surg 74(3):242–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hemal AK, Stansel I, Babbar P, Patel M (2011) Robotic-assisted nephroureterectomy and bladder cuff excision without intraoperative repositioning. Urology 78(2):357–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kutikov A, Fossett LK, Ramchandani P et al (2006) Incidence of benign pathologic findings at partial nephrectomy for solitary renal mass presumed to be renal cell carcinoma on preoperative imaging. Urology 68:737–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mason BM, Hakimi AA, Faleck D, Chernyak V, Rozenblitt A, Ghavamian R (2010) The role of preoperative endo-rectal coil magnetic resonance imaging in predicting surgical difficulty for robotic prostatectomy. Urology 76(5):1130–1135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Matikainen MP, von Bodman CJ, Secin FP, Yunis LH, Vora K, Guillonneau B et al (2010) The depth of the prostatic apex is an independent predictor of positive apical margins at radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 106(5):622–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Patel M, Porter J (2013) Robotic retroperitoneal surgery: a contemporary review. Curr Opin Urol 23(1):51–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pruthi RS, Nix J, McRackan D, Hickerson A, Nielsen ME, Raynor M et al (2010) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic intracorporeal urinary diversion. Eur Urol 57(6):1013–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reyes JM, Smaldone MC, Uzzo RG, Viterbo R (2012) Current status of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Curr Urol Rep 13(1):24–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thakre AA, Bailly Y, Sun LW, Van Meer F, Yeung CK (2008) Is smaller workspace a limitation for robot performance in laparoscopy? J Urol 179(3):1138–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tomaszewski JJ, Casella DP, Turner RM 2nd, Casale P, Ost MC (2012) Pediatric laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: technical considerations. J Endourol 26(6):602–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zargar H, Krishnan J, Autorino R, Akca O, Brandao LF, Laydner H et al (2014) Robotic nephroureterectomy: a simplified approach requiring no patient repositioning or robot redocking. Eur Urol pii S0302-2838(14)00189-4Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hatieganu” and Urology DepartmentClinical Municipal HospitalCluj-NapocaRomania
  2. 2.Urology DepartmentClinical Municipal HospitalCluj-NapocaRomania

Personalised recommendations