SpringerLink
Log in

New trends in minimally invasive urological surgery. What is beyond the robot?

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To review the minimal-invasive development of surgical technique in urology focusing on nomenclature, history and outcomes of Laparo-Endoscopic Single-site Surgery (LESS), Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) and Computer-Assisted Surgery (CAS).

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in order to find article related to LESS, NOTES and CAS in urology. The most relevant papers over the last 10 years were selected in base to the experience from the panel of experts, journal, authorship and/or content.

Results

Seven hundred and fifty manuscripts were found. Papers on LESS describe feasibility/safety in most of the procedures with a clinical experience of more than 300 cases and five compared results to standard laparoscopy without showing significant differences. NOTES accesses have been proved their feasibility/safety in experimental study. In human, the only procedures performed are on kidney and through a hybrid-Transvaginal route. New robots overcome the main drawbacks of the DaVinci® platform. The use of CAS is increasing its popularity in urology.

Conclusions

LESS has been applied in clinical practice, but only ongoing technical and instrumental refinement will define its future role and overall benefit. The transition to a clinical application of NOTES seems at present only possible with multiple NOTES access and transvaginal access. Robot and Soft Tissue Navigation appear to be important to improve surgical skills. We are already witness to the advantages offered by the former even if costs need to be redefined based on pending long-term results. The latter will probably upgrade the quality of surgery in a near future.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

LESS:

Laparo-Endoscopic Single-site Surgery

NOTES™:

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery

CAS:

Computer-Assisted Surgery

IGS:

Image-Guided System

AR:

Augmented reality

3D:

Three dimensional

US:

Ultrasound

TURP:

Transurethral resection of prostate

DoF:

Degree of freedom

RP:

Radical prostatectomy

RALP:

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

CT:

Computed tomography

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

FDA:

Food and drug administration

DoF:

Degrees of freedom

RALP:

Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy

VR:

Virtual reality

AR:

Augmented reality

STN:

Soft tissue navigation

RRP:

Radical retropubic prostatectomy

TRUS:

Ultrasonography trans-rectal ultrasonography

References

  1. Autorino R, Stein RJ, Lima E, Damiano R, Khanna R, Haber GP, White MA, Kaouk JH (2010) Current status and future perspectives in laparoendoscopic single-site and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic urological surgery. Int J Urol 17:410–431. doi:10.1111/j.1442-2042.2010.02497.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Teber D, Baumhauer M, Guvenc EO, Rassweiler J (2009) Robotic and imaging in urological surgery. Curr Opin Urol 19:108–113. doi:10.1097/MOU.0b013e32831a4776

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Box G, Averch T, Cadeddu J et al (2008) Nomenclature of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTESTM) and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) procedures in urology. J Endourol 22:2575–2581. doi:10.1089/end.2008.0471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Raman JD, Bagrodia A, Cadeddu JA (2009) Single-incision, umbilical laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy: A comparison of peri-operative outcomes and short-term measures of convalescence. Eur Urol 55:1198–1204. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.08.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Desai MM, Berger AK, Brandina R et al (2009) Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: initial hundred patients. Urology 74:805–812. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2009.02.083

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. White WM, Haber GP, Goel RK, Crouzet S, Stein RJ, Kaouk JH (2009) Single-port urological surgery: single-center experience with the first 100 cases. Urology 74:801–804. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2009.04.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Raybourn JH III, Rane A, Sundaram CP (2009) Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery for nephrectomy as a feasible alternative to traditional laparoscopy. Urology 75:100–103. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2009.05.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Stolzenburg JU, Kallidonis P, Hellawell G et al (2009) Technique of laparoscopic-endoscopic single-site surgery radical nephrectomy. Eur Urol 56:644–650. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2009.06.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Canes D, Berger A, Aron M et al (2009) Laparo-Endoscopic Single Site (LESS) versus standard laparoscopic left donor nephrectomy: matched-pair comparison. Eur Urol 57:95–101. doi:0.1016/j.eururo.2009.07.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tracy CR, Raman JD, Bagrodia A, Cadeddu JA (2009) Perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing conventional laparoscopic versus laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty. Urology 74:1029–1034. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2009.04.089

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Noguera RJ, Astigueta JC, Carmona O et al (2009) Laparoscopic augmentation enterocystoplasty through a single trocar. Urology 73:1371–1374. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2009.01.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jeong BC, Park YH, Han DH, Kim HH (2009) Laparoendoscopic single-site and conventional laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a matched case-control study. J Endourol 23:1957–1960. doi:10.1089=end.2009.0404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kaouk JH, Goel RK (2009) Single-port laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 55:1169–1170. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.12.029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Breda G, Silvestre P, Giunta A et al (1993) Laparoscopic nephrectomy with vaginal delivery of the intact kidney. Eur Urol 24:116–117

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gettman MT, Lotan Y, Napper CA et al (2002) Transvaginal laparoscopic nephrectomy: development and feasibility in the porcine model. Urology 59:446–450

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kalloo AN, Singh VK, Jagannath SB et al (2004) Fexible transgastric peritoneoscopy: a novel approach to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the peritoneal cavity. Gastrointest Endosc 60:114–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lima E, Rolanda C, Pego JM, Henrique Coelho T, Silva D, Carvalho JL, Correia-Pinto J (2006) Transvesical endoscopic peritoneoscopy: a novel 5 mm port for intra-abdominal scarless surgery. J Urol 176:802–805. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.03.075

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fong DG, Pai RD, Thompson CC (2007) Transcolonic endoscopic abdominal exploration: a NOTES survival study in porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 65:312–318. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2006.08.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Boylu U, Oommen M, Thomas R, Lee BR (2009) Transumbilical single-port laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in a pig model. BJU Int. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08916.x

  20. Sawyer MD, Cherullo EE, Elmunzer BJ, Schomisch S, Ponsky LE (2009) Pure natural orifice translumental endoscopic surgery partial cystectomy: intravesical transurethral and extravesical transgastric techniques in a porcine model. Urology 74:1049–1053

    Google Scholar 

  21. Clayman RV, Box GN, Abraham JB et al (2007) Rapid communication: transvaginal single-port NOTES nephrectomy: initial laboratory experience. J Endourol 21:640–644

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pai RD, Fong DG, Bungda ME et al (2006) Transcolonic endoscopic cholecystectomy: a NOTES survival study in porcine model (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 64:428–434

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lima E, Rolanda C, Correia-Pinto J (2009) NOTES performed using multiple ports of entry: current experience and potential implications for urologic applications. J Endourol 23:759–764. doi:10.1089=end.2008.0026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lima E, Rolanda C, Pego JM et al (2007) Third-generation nephrectomy by natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. J Urol 178:2648–2654. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.07.117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Crouzet S, Haber GP, Kamoi K et al (2008) Natural orifice translumental endoscopic surgery (NOTES) renal cryoablation in a porcine model. BJU Int 102:1715–1718

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gettman MT, Blute ML (2007) Transvesical peritoneoscopy: initial clinical evaluation of the bladder as a portal for natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery. Mayo Clin Proc 82:843–845

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Branco AW, Branco Filho AJ, Kondo W et al (2008) Hybrid transvaginal nephrectomy. Eur Urol 53:1290–1294

    Google Scholar 

  28. Alcaraz A, Peri L, Molina A et al (2009) Feasibility of transvaginal NOTES-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy. Eur Urol 57:233–237. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2009.09.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sotelo R, de Andrade R, Fernandez G et al (2010) NOTES hybrid transvaginal radical nephrectomy for tumor: stepwise progression toward a first successful clinical case. Eur Urol 57:138–144. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2009.04.031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Haber GP, Crouzet S, Kamoi K, Berger A, Aron M, Goel R, Canes D, Desai M, Gill AI, Kaouk JH (2008) Robotic NOTES (natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery) in reconstructive urology: initial laboratory experience. Urology 71:996–1000. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2008.03.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Joseph JV, Oleynikov D, Renteschler M, Dumpert J, Patel HRH (2008) Microrobot assisted laparoscopic urological surgery in a canine model. J Urol 180:2202–2205. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.07.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Leheman AC, Dumpert J, Wood NA et al (2009) Natural orifice cholecistectomy using a miniature robot. Surg Endosc 23:260–266. doi:10.1007/s00464-008-0195-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Aron M, Haber GP, Desai MM, Gill IS (2007) Flexible robotics: a new paradigm. Current Op Urol 17:151–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ukimura O, Gill IS (2008) Imaging-assisted endoscopic surgery: cleveland clinic experience. J Endourol 22:803–810; review. doi: 10.1089/end.2007.9823

    Google Scholar 

  35. Baumhauer M, Feuerstein M, Meinzer HP et al (2008) Navigation in endoscopic soft tissue surgery: perspectives and limitations. J Endourol 22:751–766. doi:10.1089/end.2007.9827

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Teber D, Guven S, Simpfendörfer T, Baumhauer M, Güven EO, Yencilek F, Gözen AS, Rassweiler J (2009) Augmented reality: a new tool to improve surgical accuracy during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy? Preliminary in vitro and in vivo results. Eur Urol Aug 56:332–338. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2009.05.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Su LM, Vagvolgyi BP, Agarwal R, Reiley CE, Taylor RH, Hager GD (2009) Augmented reality during robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: toward real-time 3D-CT to stereoscopic video registration. Urology 73:896–900. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2008.11.040

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Via del pozzo 71, 41100, Modena, Italy

    Salvatore Micali, Giovannalberto Pini, Maria Chiara Sighinolfi, Stefano De Stefani & Giampaolo Bianchi

  2. Department of Urology, SLK Kliniken Heilbronn, University of Heidelberg, Am Gesundbrunnen 20, 74078, Heilbronn, Germany

    Dogu Teber & Jens Rassweiler

Authors
  1. Salvatore Micali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giovannalberto Pini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dogu Teber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria Chiara Sighinolfi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stefano De Stefani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Giampaolo Bianchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jens Rassweiler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jens Rassweiler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Micali, S., Pini, G., Teber, D. et al. New trends in minimally invasive urological surgery. What is beyond the robot?. World J Urol 31, 505–513 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-010-0588-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-010-0588-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation