El impacto de la cirugía robótica en Urología / The Impact of Robotic Surgery in Urology

Introducción: Hace más de una década la cirugía robótica llego a la Urología. Desde entonces, la comunidad urológica comenzó a observar la cirugía desde un ángulo diferente. Los cambios son evidentes en el presente, el futuro y la forma en que vemos nuestra pasada experiencia quirúrgica. Métodos: Se revisó la literatura médica publicada entre el año 2000 y el 2011 usando la base de datos de la National Library of Medicine y las siguientes palabras clave: cirugía robótica, asistencia robótica en cirugía, prostatectomía radical. Se hizo énfasis en el impacto de la cirugía robótica en Urología. Analizamos además las series más representativas (curva de aprendizaje finalizada) en cada uno de los abordajes robóticos en referencia a la morbilidad perioperatoria y los resultados oncológicos. Resultados: Este artículo analiza el impacto de la robótica en Urología a partir de las aplicaciones quirúrgicas y no quirúrgicas previas, la forma en que se introdujo a la Urología, sus primeros pasos, la situación actual y las expectativas futuras. Al narrar este viaje hemos intentado resaltar las modificaciones importantes que ayudaron a la cirugía robótica a recorrer su camino hasta su posición actual. Se hace énfasis también en los importantes cambios que trajo la cirugía robótica al campo del entrenamiento quirúrgico y sus consecuencias en su curva de aprendizaje. Conclusión: Los principios básicos de la cirugía aún se ponen en práctica en la cirugía robótica: la experiencia del cirujano y la prolongada práctica dan conocimiento y habilidades. Siguiendo esto, las ventajas potenciales provenientes de la tecnología pueden ser bien explotadas y verse reflejadas en mejores resultados para los pacientes (AU)

Introduction: More than a decade ago, robotic surgery was introduced into urology. Since then, the urological community started to look at surgery from a different angle. The present, the future hopes, and the way we looked at our past experience have all changed. Methods: Between 2000 and 2011, the published literature was reviewed using the National Library of Medicine database and the following key words: robotic surgery, robot-assisted, and radical prostatectomy. Special emphasis was given to the impact of the robotic surgery in urology. We analyzed the most representative series (finished learning curve) in each one of the robotic approaches regarding perioperative morbidity and oncological outcomes. Results: This article looks into the impact of robotics in urology, starting from its background applications before urology, the way it was introduced into urology, its first steps, current status, and future expectations. By narrating this journey, we tried to highlight important modifications that helped robotic surgery make its way to its position today. We looked as well into the dramatic changes that robotic surgery introduced to the field of surgical training and its consequence on its learning curve. Conclusion: Basic surgical principles still apply in Robotics: experience counts, and prolonged practice provides knowledge and skills. In this way, the potential advantages delivered by technology will be better exploited, and this will be reflected in better outcomes for patients (AU)

The impact of robotic surgery in urology.

INTRODUCTION: More than a decade ago, robotic surgery was introduced into urology. Since then, the urological community started to look at surgery from a different angle. The present, the future hopes, and the way we looked at our past experience have all changed. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2011, the published literature was reviewed using the National Library of Medicine database and the following key words: robotic surgery, robot-assisted, and radical prostatectomy. Special emphasis was given to the impact of the robotic surgery in urology. We analyzed the most representative series (finished learning curve) in each one of the robotic approaches regarding perioperative morbidity and oncological outcomes. RESULTS: This article looks into the impact of robotics in urology, starting from its background applications before urology, the way it was introduced into urology, its first steps, current status, and future expectations. By narrating this journey, we tried to highlight important modifications that helped robotic surgery make its way to its position today. We looked as well into the dramatic changes that robotic surgery introduced to the field of surgical training and its consequence on its learning curve. CONCLUSION: Basic surgical principles still apply in Robotics: experience counts, and prolonged practice provides knowledge and skills. In this way, the potential advantages delivered by technology will be better exploited, and this will be reflected in better outcomes for patients.

Heminefrectomía NOTES-híbrido transvaginal por duplicidad del sistema colector renal en el paciente adulto / Hybrid-NOTES transvaginal hemi-nephrectomy for duplicated renal collecting system in the adult patient

Introducción: La duplicación del uréter y la pelvis renal es la anomalía más común del tracto urinario superior. La heminefrectomía polar superior es el tratamiento de elección cuando la anomalía se asocia con ectopia ureteral o ureterocele en un sistema no funcionante o infección crónica del riñón. Material y método: Se describe la heminefrectomía del polo renal superior por NOTES-híbrido en una mujer de 24 años de edad con infecciones urinarias recurrentes en un sistema superior con escasa función. El procedimiento se realizó con un trócar bariátrico a través de la vagina, y un trócar multicanal (Triport, Olympus Surgical) a través del ombligo. Se utiliza bisturí ultrasónico para la heminefrectomía. El espécimen se retira por la vagina. Resultados: El tiempo operatorio fue 150 minutos y el sangrado 50 cc. Después de una semana la paciente desarrolló un urinoma en el lecho quirúrgico, que precisó exploración por vía laparoscópica. El lecho de la heminefrectomía fue fulgurado y se colocó un drenaje. La paciente se recuperó sin eventualidad tras la reintervención. Conclusiones: Se describe la técnica de heminefrectomía transvaginal con técnica NOTES híbrido. Este abordaje requiere mayor desarrollo, tanto de la instrumentación como de la técnica. La combinación de los abordajes umbilical y transvaginal restablece la triangulación y facilita la disección, pero se requiere más experiencia para determinar su seguridad, eficacia y reproducibilidad (AU)

Introduction: Duplication of the ureter and renal pelvis is the most common anomaly of the upper urinary tract. Upper pole heminephrectomy is a treatment option when duplication anomalies are associated with ureteral ectopia or ureterocele with an associated nonfunctioning or infected upper pole moiety. Material and method: We describe a NOTES hybrid transvaginal upper pole heminephrectomy in a 24 year old with recurrent infections in a poorly functioning right upper pole moiety. The procedure was performed with a bariatric trocar in the vagina, and a multichannel single-port device (Triport, Olympus Surgical) in the umbilicus. An ultrasonic scalpel was used for the heminephrectomy. The specimen was retrieved through the vagina. Results: Operative time was 150 minutes and blood loss 50 cc. One week later the patient developed urinoma at the surgical site and was re-explored laparoscopically. The cut edge of the heminephrectomy defect was fulgurated and a drain placed. The patient recovered uneventfully following re-exploration. Conclusions: We describe the technique for transvaginal Hybrid-NOTES heminephrectomy. This approach requires further development with respect to instrumentation, and surgical expertise. The combined umbilical and vaginal approached restored triangulation and facilitates dissection, but more experience is required to determine safety, efficacy and reproducibility (AU)

[Hybrid-NOTES transvaginal hemi-nephrectomy for duplicated renal collecting system in the adult patient]. / Heminefrectomía NOTES-híbrido transvaginal por duplicidad del sistema colector renal en el paciente adulto.

INTRODUCTION: Duplication of the ureter and renal pelvis is the most common anomaly of the upper urinary tract. Upper pole heminephrectomy is a treatment option when duplication anomalies are associated with ureteral ectopia or ureterocele with an associated nonfunctioning or infected upper pole moiety. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We describe a NOTES hybrid transvaginal upper pole heminephrectomy in a 24 year old with recurrent infections in a poorly functioning right upper pole moiety. The procedure was performed with a bariatric trocar in the vagina, and a multichannel single-port device (Triport, Olympus Surgical) in the umbilicus. An ultrasonic scalpel was used for the heminephrectomy. The specimen was retrieved through the vagina. RESULTS: Operative time was 150 minutes and blood loss 50 cc. One week later the patient developed urinoma at the surgical site and was re-explored laparoscopically. The cut edge of the heminephrectomy defect was fulgurated and a drain placed. The patient recovered uneventfully following re-exploration. CONCLUSIONS: We describe the technique for transvaginal Hybrid-NOTES heminephrectomy. This approach requires further development with respect to instrumentation, and surgical expertise. The combined umbilical and vaginal approached restored triangulation and facilitates dissection, but more experience is required to determine safety, efficacy and reproducibility.

[A novel technique for distal ureterectomy and bladder cuff excision]. / Nueva técnica para la ureterectomía distal y excisión de manguito vesical.

INTRODUCTION: We describe a novel endoscopic approach and provide a literature review for the "en bloc" dissection of the distal ureter and bladder cuff during laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy using a transvesical single port approach under pneumovesicum. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The procedure was performed in an 80-year old male with a history of gross hematuria due to left renal pelvic TCC and no history of prior bladder TCC. Laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy was performed and the ureter was dissected down to the bladder and clipped. A single-port device was inserted transvesically and pneumovesicum established. A full thickness incision of the bladder around the ureter was performed with progressive intravesical mobilization of the distal ureter. Subsequently, a water-tight closure of the bladder defect was achieved. The distal ureter, together with the bladder cuff, was then delivered en bloc laparoscopically with the specimen. RESULTS: The operating time (LESS radical nephroureterectomy, RPLND, and bladder cuff excision) was 6hours and 15minutes. The bladder cuff time was 45minutes. There were no intra or postoperative complications and the catheter was removed after 6 days. Histopathological analysis showed kidney-invasive papillary urothelial cancer, pT3 pN0 (0/7) G3. CONCLUSION: The distal ureter and bladder cuff techniques have not yet been standardized. Management of the bladder cuff with a single port is feasible. Additional studies are needed to identify the best approach for management of the distal ureter at the time of laparoscopic nephroureterectomy.

Nueva técnica para la ureterectomía distal y excisión de manguito vesical / A Novel Technique for Distal Ureterectomy and Bladder Cuff Excision

Introducción: Se describe un novedoso abordaje endoscópico y se hace una revisión de la literatura para la disección «en bloque» del uréter distal y el manguito vesical durante la nefroureterectomía radical laparoscópica, usando un puerto único multicanal transvesical con pneumovejiga (pneumovesicum). Materiales y método: El procedimiento se llevó a cabo en un hombre de 80 años de edad, con historia de hematuria macroscópica debida a carcinoma de células transicionales (CCT) en la pelvis renal izquierda, sin historia previa de CCT en vejiga. Se realizó una nefroureterectomía radical laparoscópica y el uréter fue disecado hasta la inserción en la vejiga y fue clipado. Un dispositivo de puerto único multicanal (single-port) fue insertado transvesicalmente y se estableció la pneumovejiga. Se practica una incisión de la vejiga en todo su grosor alrededor del uréter, y se va realizando una movilización intravesical del uréter distal. Subsecuentemente, se realiza un cierre hermético del defecto vesical. El uréter distal, junto con el manguito vesical, se liberan laparoscópicamente y se extraen en bloque con el espécimen. Resultados: El tiempo operatorio (nefroureterectomía radical laparoscópica, LDRP y escisión del manguito vesical por puerto único) fue de 6 horas y 15 minutos. El tiempo del manguito vesical fue de 45 minutos. No hubo complicaciones intra o postoperatorias y la sonda fue retirada al sexto día de la cirugía. El análisis histopatológico mostró CCT comprometiendo el riñón, pT3G3 pN0 (0/7). Conclusión: La técnica de abordaje del uréter distal y el manguito vesical aún no ha sido estandarizada. El manejo del manguito vesical con un puerto único multicanal es factible. Estudios adicionales son necesarios para identificar cuál es el mejor abordaje para el manejo del uréter distal durante una nefroureterectomía laparoscópica (AU)

Introduction: We describe a novel endoscopic approach and provide a literature review for the “en bloc” dissection of the distal ureter and bladder cuff during laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy using a transvesical single port approach under pneumovesicum. Materials and methods: The procedure was performed in an 80-year old male with a history of gross hematuria due to left renal pelvic TCC and no history of prior bladder TCC. Laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy was performed and the ureter was dissected down to the bladder and clipped. A single-port device was inserted transvesically and pneumovesicum established. A full thickness incision of the bladder around the ureter was performed with progressive intravesical mobilization of the distal ureter. Subsequently, a water-tight closure of the bladder defect was achieved. The distal ureter, together with the bladder cuff, was then delivered en bloc laparoscopically with the specimen. Results: The operating time (LESS radical nephroureterectomy, RPLND, and bladder cuff excision) was 6 hours and 15minutes. The bladder cuff time was 45minutes. There were no intra or postoperative complications and the catheter was removed after 6 days. Histopathological analysis showed kidney-invasive papillary urothelial cancer, pT3 pN0 (0/7) G3. Conclusion: The distal ureter and bladder cuff techniques have not yet been standardized. Management of the bladder cuff with a single port is feasible. Additional studies are needed to identify the best approach for management of the distal ureter at the time of laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (AU)