3.8 Review

Robotic stone surgery - Current state and future prospects: A systematic review

Journal

ARAB JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages 357-364

Publisher

ARAB ASSOC UROLOGY
DOI: 10.1016/j.aju.2017.09.004

Keywords

Robotic stone surgery; Urolithiasis; Nephrolithiasis; Stone disease; Endourology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To provide a comprehensive review of robot-assisted surgery in urolithiasis and to consider the future prospects of robotic approaches in stone surgery. Materials and methods: We performed a systematic PubMed (c) literature search using predefined Medical Subject Headings search terms to identify PubMed-listed clinical research studies on robotic stone surgery. All authors screened the results for eligibility and two independent reviewers performed the data extraction. Results: The most common approach in robotic stone surgery is a robot-assisted pyelolithotomy using the da Vinci(TM) system (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Several studies show this technique to be comparable to classic laparoscopic and open surgical interventions. One study that focused on ureteric stones showed a similar result. In recent years, promising data on robotic intrarenal surgery have been reported (Roboflex Avicenna(TM); Elmed Medical Systems, Ankara, Turkey). Initial studies have shown its feasibility and high stone-free rates and prove that this novel endoscopic approach is safe for the patient and comfortable for the surgeon. Conclusions: The benefits of robotic devices in stone surgery in existing endourological, laparoscopic, and open treatment strategies still need elucidation. Although recent data are promising, more prospective randomised controlled studies are necessary to clarify the impact of this technique on patient safety and stone-free rates. (C) 2017 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Arab Association of Urology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available