Acceptance, Prevalence and Indications for Robot-Assisted Laparoscopy - Results of a Survey Among Urologists in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) is being widely accepted in the field of urology as a replacement for conventional laparoscopy (CL). Nevertheless, the process of its integration in clinical routines has been rather spontaneous. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of robotic systems (RS) in urological clinics in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, the acceptance of RAL among urologists as a replacement for CL and its current use for 25 different urological indications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To elucidate the practice patterns of RAL, a survey at hospitals in Germany, Austria and Switzerland was conducted. All surgically active urology departments in Germany (303), Austria (37) and Switzerland (84) received a questionnaire with questions related to the one-year period prior to the survey. RESULTS: The response rate was 63%. Among the participants, 43% were universities, 45% were tertiary care centres, and 8% were secondary care hospitals. A total of 60 RS (Germany 35, Austria 8, Switzerland 17) were available, and the majority (68%) were operated under public ownership. The perception of RAL and the anticipated superiority of RAL significantly differed between robotic and non-robotic surgeons. For only two urologic indications were more than 50% of the procedures performed using RAL: pyeloplasty (58%) and transperitoneal radical prostatectomy (75%). On average, 35% of robotic surgeons and only 14% of non-robotic surgeons anticipated RAL superiority in some of the 25 indications. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides a detailed insight into RAL implementation in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. RAL is currently limited to a few urological indications with a small number of high-volume robotic centres. These results might suggest that a saturation of clinics using RS has been achieved but that the existing robotic capacities are being utilized ineffectively. The possible reasons for this finding are discussed, and certain strategies to solve these problems are offered.

Development of urologic laparoscopy in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland: a survey among urologists.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopy introduction has dramatically changed urology. Novel techniques, such as laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) and natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), might also have substantial influence. This 2012 survey evaluated present laparoscopy use, its appraisal among urologic surgeons, laparoscopy training, and use of new techniques. Results were compared to the previous surveys, demonstrating the 10-year development of laparoscopy. METHODS: A detailed questionnaire regarding demographic data, laparoscopy use, attitudes concerning laparoscopy, and novel techniques was send to 424 departments in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Procedures performed in 25 indications were quantitatively evaluated. RESULTS: The response rate was 63 % (269). Eighty-six percent of the respondents reported performing laparoscopy, compared to 54 % in 2002. Only 16 % expected economic advantages with laparoscopy, whereas 67 % expected shorter hospitalization. Seventy percent of responders anticipated comparable functional and oncological results between laparoscopic procedures and open surgery. Slow learning curves (81 %) and insufficient training facilities (32 %) were reported to impair laparoscopic surgery. On average, laparoscopic and non-laparoscopic surgical teams consisted of 2.5 and 3.5 members, respectively. LESS procedures were performed at 15 % of institutions. Twenty-two percent of respondents considered NOTES techniques valuable for future urology. Few indications (laparoscopic prostatectomies or nephrectomies) were performed frequently in specialized centers, and the rapidly increasing procedure numbers observed between 2002 and 2007 had dropped to a mild accretion. The results demonstrate broad acceptance of laparoscopy in German urologic surgery, depict the need for structured training facilities, and indicate limited impact of novel techniques (LESS and NOTES). CONCLUSIONS: The survey demonstrates the 10-year development of urologic laparoscopy and the broad acceptance of laparoscopic techniques.

Laparoendoscopic single-site and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in urology: a critical analysis of the literature.

CONTEXT: Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) have been developed to benefit patients by enabling surgeons to perform scarless surgery. OBJECTIVE: To summarize and critically analyze the available evidence on the current status and future perspectives of LESS and NOTES in urology. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted in June 2010 using the Medline database to identify all publications relating to NOTES and LESS in urology. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: In urology, NOTES has been completed experimentally via transgastric, transvaginal, transcolonic, and transvesical routes. Initial clinical experience has shown that NOTES urologic surgery using currently available instruments is indeed possible. Nevertheless, because of the immaturity of the instrumentation, early cases have demanded high technical virtuosity. LESS can safely and effectively be performed in a variety of urologic settings. As clinical experience increases, expanding indications are expected to be documented and the efficacy of the procedure to improve. So far, the quality of evidence of all available studies remains low, mostly being small case series or case-control studies from selected centers. Thus, the only objective benefit of LESS remains the improved cosmetic outcome. Prospective, randomized studies are largely awaited to determine which LESS procedures will be established and which are unlikely to stand the test of time. Technology advances hold promise to minimize the challenging technical nature of scarless surgery. In this respect, robotics is likely to drive a major paradigm shift in the development of LESS and NOTES. CONCLUSIONS: NOTES is still an investigational approach in urology. LESS has proven to be immediately applicable in the clinical field, being safe and feasible in the hands of experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Development of instrumentation and application of robotic technology are expected to define the actual role of these techniques in minimally invasive urologic surgery.

Laparoscopy in German urology: changing acceptance among urologists.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic techniques have dramatically influenced urologic surgery in the past 2 decades. OBJECTIVES: A questionnaire was distributed in 2006 to analyse laparoscopic practice patterns in Germany. The results were compared with a survey performed in 2002. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In 2006, 324 German urology departments received a detailed, anonymous, and self-administered questionnaire regarding demographic data, current use, and attitudes concerning laparoscopy. Quantitative evaluation of laparoscopic procedures was performed for 20 indications. MEASUREMENTS: The response rate was 73% (238 of 324 institutions). Thirty-two responders were affiliated with universities; 95 responders were affiliated with urban hospitals; 101 responders were affiliated with general hospitals; and 9 responders were affiliated with private hospitals. Laparoscopy had been implemented as a standard operating procedure in 82% of the departments, an increase of 28% compared with the 2002 questionnaire. Forty-eight percent of participants expected a similar operating time to that of open surgery, an increase of 16% compared with the 2002 questionnaire. Concerns about the learning curve dropped from 92% in 2002 to 80% in 2006, and concerns about economic disadvantages dropped from 70% in 2002 to 45% in 2006. Criticism regarding lack of sufficient scientific data decreased from 76% in 2002 to 13% in 2006. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomies (>40 per year) were performed in 30 hospitals in 2006, an increase of 27% over 2002. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy was performed 16-40 times per year in 33 of the responding institutions, an increase of 29% over 2002, and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy was performed >40 per year in 10 of the institutions, an increase of 9% over 2002. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty had a reported frequency of 16-40 procedures per year in 11 of the responding institutions, an increase of 10% over 2002, and laparoscopic pyeloplasty had a frequency between 5 and 15 procedures per year in 42 institutions, an increase of 37% over 2002. Only four hospitals performed cystectomy with ileum conduit and with orthotopic bladder substitute (5-15 cases per year). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The results demonstrate the rising acceptance of laparoscopy in urologic surgery (an increase of 28% more departments performing laparoscopy) and an increasing interest in these techniques (an increase of 12% in the response rate). Their value is still limited by the response rate of only 73%. CONCLUSIONS: This survey demonstrates the increasing impact of laparoscopy on surgical patterns in urology and the increasing acceptance of laparoscopic techniques concerning operating time, learning curve, and scientific approval.