Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Camera and trocar placement for robot-assisted radical and partial nephrectomy: which configuration provides optimal visualization and instrument mobility?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Proper camera and trocar placement is critical to the success of minimally invasive procedures. For robot-assisted renal surgery, two basic trocar configurations have been described. The medial approach, using a 30° downward-angled lens mimics a traditional transperitoneal laparoscopic configuration. An alternative configuration, using a 0° or 30° upward-angled lens approach locates the camera laterally, evoking a position sense similar to a retroperitoneal approach. Our objective is to compare the differences between these two standard approaches for robot-assisted renal surgery. After performing a review and analysis of available literature, our group tested both the medial and lateral camera approaches during robotic renal surgery performed in human patients. The medial approach provides a wide field of view, because of the relatively greater distance to the target structures and a horizon line closer to the patient’s midline. The lateral configuration offers significantly different visualization. The relative proximity to the target structures and a higher horizon line results in a comparatively restricted field of vision. Instrument mobility is comparable between the two approaches. Meta-analysis of the literature reveals that both approaches provide comparable overall operative times for both radical and partial nephrectomy, though there is a trend towards shorter overall operative times for partial nephrectomy performed through a medial approach. The medial trocar configuration provides a familiar working environment for both surgeon and assistant; the wide-angle view enables enhanced visualization of surrounding structures and tracking of the instruments inserted by the assistant. The lateral approach offers the potential advantage of a closer view of the kidney, but does so at the expense of a significantly restricted field of view. In our experience, a medial trocar configuration offers significant advantages over the lateral trocar configuration, and is, therefore, the standard approach at our high-volume center.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bhayani SB, Rha KH, Pinto PA et al (2004) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: effect of warm ischemia on serum creatinine. J Urol 172:1264–1266

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Lane BR et al (2007) Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors. J Urol 178:41–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dash A, Vickers AJ, Schachter LR et al (2006) Comparison of outcomes in elective partial vs radical nephrectomy for clear cell renal carcinoma of 4–7 cm. BJU Int 97:939–945

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gong EM, Orvieto MA, Zorn KC et al (2008) Comparison of laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy in clinical T1a renal tumors. J Endourol 22:953–957

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lane BR, Gill IS (2007) 5-year outcomes of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Urol 177:70–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Abukora F, Nambirajan T, Albgami N et al (2005) Laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery: evolution in a decade. Eur Urol 47:488–493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tsujihata M, Nonomura N, Momohara C et al (2008) Clinical experience with laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. Urol Int 81:301–305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dunn MD, Portis AJ, Shalhav AL et al (2000) Laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy: a 9-year experience. J Urol 164:1153–1159

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hemal AK, Kumar A, Kumar R et al (2007) Laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy for large renal tumors: a long-term prospective comparison. J Urol 177:862–866

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jiang J, Zheng X, Qin J et al (2009) Health-related quality of life after hand-assisted laparoscopic and open radical nephrectomies of renal cell carcinoma. Int Urol Nephrol 41:23–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Patel V (2005) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology 66:45–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Phillips CK, Taneja SS, Stifelman MD (2005) Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: the NYU technique. J Endourol 19:441–445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rogers CG, Singh A, Blatt AM, Linehan WM, Pinto PA (2008) Robotic partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors: Surgical technique. Eur Urol 53:514–523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bhayani SB (2008) Da Vinci robotic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: an atlas of the four-arm technique. J Robotic Surg 1:279–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Badani KK, Muhletaler F, Fumo M et al (2008) Optimizing robotic renal surgery: the lateral camera port placement technique and current results. J Endourol 22(3):507–510

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rogers CG, Laungani R, Bhandari A et al (2009) Maximizing console surgeon independence during robot-assisted renal surgery by using the fourth arm and TilePro.TM. J Endourol 23:115–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kaul S, Laungani R, Sarle R et al (2007) Da vinci-assisted robotic partial nephrectomy: technique and results at a mean of 15 months of follow-up. Eur Urol 51:186–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hollenbeck BK, Taub DA, Miller DC et al (2006) National utilization trends of partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a case of underutilization? Urology 67:254–259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shapiro E, Benway BM, Wang AJ et al (2009) The role of nephron-sparing robotic surgery in the management of renal malignancy. Curr Opin Urol 19:76–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Badwan K, Bhayani S (2007) Robotic pyeloplasty: a critical appraisal. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg 3:20–22

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Nazemi T, Galich A, Sterrett S et al (2006) Radical nephrectomy performed by open, laparoscopy with or without hand-assistance or robotic methods by the same surgeon produces comparable perioperative results. Int Braz J Urol 32:15–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Park SY, Jeong W, Choi YD et al (2008) Yonsei experience in robotic urologic surgery—application in various urological procedures. Yonsei Med J 49:897–900

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hemal AK, Kumar A (2009) A prospective comparison of laparoscopic and robotic radical nephrectomy for T1-2N0M0 renal cell carcinoma. World J Urol 27:89–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Klingler DW, Hemstreet GP, Balaji KC (2005) Feasibility of robotic radical nephrectomy—initial results of single-institution pilot study. Urology 65:1086–1089

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Deane LA, Lee HJ, Box GN et al (2008) Robotic versus standard laparoscopic partial/wedge nephrectomy: a comparison of intraoperative and perioperative results from a single institution. J Endourol 22:947–952

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bhayani SB, Das N (2008) Robotic assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for suspected renal cell carcinoma: retrospective review of surgical outcomes of 35 cases. BMC Surg 8:16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wang AJ, Bhayani SB (2009) Robotic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: single-surgeon analysis of >100 consecutive procedures. Urology 73:306–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Benway BM, Wang AJ, Cabello JM, Bhayani SB (2009) Robotic partial nephrectomy with sliding-clip renorrhaphy: technique and outcomes. Eur Urol 55:592–599

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Aron M, Koenig P, Kaouk J et al (2008) Robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison from a high-volume centre. BJU Int 102:86–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Caruso RP, Phillips CK, Kau E et al (2006) Robot assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: initial experience. J Urol 176:36–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gettman MT, Blute ML, Chow GK et al (2004) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: technique and initial clinical experience with da Vinci robotic system. Urology 64:914–918

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was conceptually supported by the MSI Research Director’s Fund.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urologic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA

    Jose M. Cabello, Sam B. Bhayani, Robert S. Figenshau & Brian M. Benway

Authors
  1. Jose M. Cabello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sam B. Bhayani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert S. Figenshau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Brian M. Benway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian M. Benway.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material (MOV 72295 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cabello, J.M., Bhayani, S.B., Figenshau, R.S. et al. Camera and trocar placement for robot-assisted radical and partial nephrectomy: which configuration provides optimal visualization and instrument mobility?. J Robotic Surg 3, 155–159 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-009-0152-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-009-0152-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation