Modern robotic technologies in the treatment of urological diseases
Abstract
Technological progress and significant modernization of minimally invasive methods of treatment led to the fact that robotic technologies occupy leading positions in medicine. The wide application of robotic surgical systems is due not only to high technological efficiency, but also to the tendency to transition to organ-preserving operations. Robotic technologies have all the advantages of minimally invasive techniques (such as the degree of hemorrhage, the frequency of blood transfusion, the length of hospital stay, etc.) and significantly exceed the used laparoscopic techniques, and the results of surgical interventions differ for the better from those in open operations. Thousands of successful robotic operations conducted around the world testify to the widespread introduction of robotic technologies in virtually all branches of medicine. This article describes the most current robotic technologies used in modern urological practice using robotic surgical systems.
About the Authors
A. O. Vasilyev
Moscow State Medical and Stomatological University n.a. A.I. Evdokimov
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A. V. Govorov
Moscow State Medical and Stomatological University n.a. A.I. Evdokimov
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
K. B. Kolontarev
Moscow State Medical and Stomatological University n.a. A.I. Evdokimov
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
S. O. Sukhikh
Moscow State Medical and Stomatological University n.a. A.I. Evdokimov
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
А. Окишев
ФГБОУ ВО «Московский государственный медико-стоматологический университет имени А.И. Евдокимова» Минздрава России
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Yu. A. Kim
Moscow State Medical and Stomatological University n.a. A.I. Evdokimov
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A. A. Shiryaev
Moscow State Medical and Stomatological University n.a. A.I. Evdokimov
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Yu. G. Vishnevskaya
Moscow State Medical and Stomatological University n.a. A.I. Evdokimov
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
D. Yu. Pushkar
Moscow State Medical and Stomatological University n.a. A.I. Evdokimov
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Buckingham R. A., Buckingham R. O. Robots in operating theatres / /BMJ. - 1995. - № 311. - P. 1479.
2. Cadeddu J. A., Stoianovici D., Kavoussi L. R. Telepresence and robotics: urology in the 21st century // Contemp Urol. - 1997. - 9, № 10. - P. 86-97.
3. Challacombe B. J., Khan M. S., Murphy D., Dasgupta P. The history of robotics in urology // World J Urol. - 2006. - 24, № 2. - Р. 120-127.
4. Satava R. M. Surgical robotics: the early chronicles: a personal historical perspective // Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. - 2002. - 12, № 1. - Р. 6-16.
5. Marescaux J., Leroy J., Gagner M., Rubino F., Mutter D., Vix M. Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery // Nature. - 2001. - 413. - 379-380.
6. Murphy D., Challacombe B., Khan M. S., Dasgupta P. Robotic technology in urology // Postgrad Med J. - 2006. - 82, № 973. - Р. 743-747.
7. Falk V., Diegeler A., Walther T., Löscher N., Vogel B., Ulmann C., Rauch T., Mohr F. W. Endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting on the beating heart using a computer enhanced telemanipulation system // Heart Surg Forum. - 1999. - 2, № 3. - Р. 199-205.
8. Babbar P., Hemal A. K. Robot-assisted urologic surgery in 2010 - Advancements and future outlook // Urol Ann. - 2011. - 3, № 1. P. 1-7.
9. Говоров А. В., Васильев А. О., При-лепская Е. А., Колонтарев К. Б., Пушкарь Д. Ю. Сальважная робот-ассиcтированная радикальная простатэктомия после брахитерапии: наш опыт // Онкоурология. - 2014. - 3. - C. 64-68.
10. Васильев А. О., Говоров А. В., Дьяков В. В., Ковылина М. В., Прилепская Е. А., Колонтарев К. Б., Пушкарь Д. Ю., Давыдова Е. С. Робот-ассистированная лапароскопическая дивертикулэктомия: наш первый опыт // Ж. экспериментальная и клиническая урология.- 2014.- 2.- C. 44-47.
11. Раснер П. И., Г воздев М. Ю., Рева И. А., Пушкарь Д. Ю. Робот-ассистированная коррекция ятрогенной травмы тазового отдела мочеточника // Эндохирургия сегодня. - 2014. - 5. - C. 3-9.
12. Колонтарев К. Б., Пушкарь Д. Ю., Рас-нер П. И., Рева И. А. Роботический уретероцистонеоанастомоз при травмах мочеточника. Опыт четырех случаев // Медицинский совет. - 20 J 4. - 19. - С. 46-50.
13. Раснер П. И., Гвоздев М. Ю., Рева И. А., Пушкарь Д. Ю. Робот-ассистированная сакрокольпопексия. Клинический случай // Эндохирургия сегодня. - 2014. - 5. - C. 10-15.
14. Говоров А. В., Васильев А. О., Колонта-рев К. Б., Пушкарь Д. Ю. Роботизированные технологии в урологии // Ж. Consilium medicum. - 2014.- 7. - С. 5-7.
15. Bivalacqua T. J., Pierorazio P. M., Su L. M. Open, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: optimizing the surgical approach // Surg. Oncol. - 2009. - 18, № 3. - P. 233-241.
16. Parsons J. K., Bennett J. L. Outcomes of retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted prostatectomy // Urology. - 2008. - 72, № 2. - P. 412-416.
17. Nelson B., Kaufman M., Broughton G. Comparison of length of hospital stay between radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy // J. Urol. - 2007. - 177, № 3. - Р. 929-931.
18. Tewari A., Menon M. Vattikuti institute prostatectomy: surgical technique and current results // Curr. Urol. Rep. - 2003. - 4, № 2. - P. 119-123.
19. Webster T. M., Herrell S. D., Chang S.S. Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of postoperative pain // J. Urol. - 2005. - 174, № 3. - Р. 912-914.
20. Ficarra V., Novara G., Artibani W. et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies // Eur. Urol. - 2009. - 55, № 5.- P. 1037-1063.
21. Murphy D. G., Challacombe B. J., Costello A. J. Outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy // Asian J. Androl. - 2009.- 11, № 1. - С. 94-99.
22. Elliott C. S., Hsieh M. H., Sokol E. R., Comiter C. V., Payne C. K., Chen B. Robot-assisted versus open sacrocolpopexy: a cost-minimization analysis // J Urol. - 2012. - 187. - P. 638-43.
23. Sinha R., Sanjay M., Rupa B., Kumari S. The conversion rate to open surgery is lesser with robotic assistance when compared to laparoscopy. Robotic surgery in gynecology // J Minim Access Surg. - 2015. - Vol. 11. - N. 1.- P. 50-9.
24. Oliver J. L., Kim J. H. Robotic Sacrocol-popexy-Is It the Treatment of Choice for Advanced Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse? // Curr Urol Rep. - 2017. - 18 (9). - P. 66.
25. De Gouveia De Sa M., Claydon L. S., Whitlow B., Dolcet Artahona M. A. Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis // Int Urogynecol J. - 2016. - 27 (3). - P. 355-66.
26. Anger J. T., Mueller E. R., Tarnay C., Smith B., Stroupe K., Rosenman A., et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy // Obstet Gynecol. - 2014. - 123. - P. 5-12.
27. Wilson T., Torrey R. Open versus robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: which is better? // Curr Opin Urol. - 2011. - 21, № 3. - P. 200-205.
28. Malcolm J. B., Fabrizio M. D., Barone B. B. Quality of life after open or robotic prostatectomy, cryoablation or brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer // J Urol. - 20/0. - 183. - P. 1822-1828.
Review
For citations:
Vasilyev A.O., Govorov A.V., Kolontarev K.B., Sukhikh S.O., , Kim Yu.A., Shiryaev A.A., Vishnevskaya Yu.G., Pushkar D.Yu. Modern robotic technologies in the treatment of urological diseases. Medical alphabet. 2017;3(33):25-28. (In Russ.)
Views:
263
Email this article 