Üroonkolojide Robot Yardımlı Cerrahinin Yeri
Özet
Bu yazı, üroonkolojide robot yardımlı cerrahinin tarihsel gelişimini, avantajlarını ve farklı ürolojik ameliyatlardaki yerini incelemektedir. Robotik cerrahi, 1921'de kelime kökeniyle başlayan ve daVinci® sistemiyle en ileri seviyeye ulaşan bir süreçtir. Ürolojide ilk olarak 1989'da PROBOT sistemi kullanılmış; günümüzde ise adrenalektomi, nefrektomi ve özellikle en sık yapılan radikal prostatektomi gibi birçok alanda etkinleşmiştir. Robotik cerrahi; yüksek hareket kabiliyeti, 3 boyutlu görüntü, azalan kan kaybı ve daha kısa hastanede yatış süresi gibi önemli cerrahi avantajlar sunar. Ancak, operasyon sürelerinin uzaması ve yüksek maliyetler, özellikle gelişmekte olan ülkelerde yaygınlaşmasının önündeki en büyük engellerdir. TITAN, SOFIE ve RAVEN gibi yeni nesil teknolojiler, taktil uyarı ve kompakt tasarımlarla bu maliyetleri düşürmeyi ve cerrahi sınır hassasiyetini artırmayı hedeflemektedir. Sonuç olarak, robotik cerrahi açık cerrahiye güçlü bir alternatif sunmakla birlikte, geçerliliğinin kesinleşmesi için çok merkezli ve randomize kontrollü çalışmalara ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır.
This text examines the historical development, advantages, and role of robot-assisted surgery in urooncology across various urological procedures. Robotic surgery is a process that originated with the etymology of the word in 1921 and reached its most advanced level with the daVinci® system. First utilized in urology in 1989 with the PROBOT system, it has currently become effective in many fields such as adrenalectomy, nephrectomy, and particularly radical prostatectomy, which is the most frequently performed operation. Robotic surgery offers significant surgical advantages, including high maneuverability, 3D imaging, reduced blood loss, and shorter hospital stays. However, prolonged operation times and high costs remain the primary obstacles to its widespread adoption, especially in developing countries. Next-generation technologies such as TITAN, SOFIE, and RAVEN aim to reduce these costs and improve surgical margin precision through tactile feedback and compact designs. In conclusion, while robotic surgery presents a robust alternative to open surgery, multicenter and randomized controlled trials are still required to definitively establish its validity.
Referanslar
Türk Dil Kurumu Sözlükleri (2019) (17/07/2022 tarihinde https://sozluk.gov.tr/ adresinden ulaşılmıştır).
Challacombe BJ, Khan MS, Murphy D, et al. The history of robotics in urology. World journal of urology, 2006; 24(2), 120-127. Doi: 10.1007/s00345-006-0067-1
Clarke R. Asimov's laws of robotics: implications for information technology-Part I. Computer, 1993; 26(12), 53-61. Doi:10.1109/2.247652
Shah J, Mackay S, Rockall T, et al. ‘Urobotics’: robots in urology. BJU international, 2001;88(4), 313-320. Doi:10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.02317.x
Singh I. Robotics in Urological Surgery: Review of Current Status and Maneuverability, and Comparison of Robot-Assisted and Traditional Laparoscopy. Computer Aided Surgery, 2011; 16(1), 38-45. Doi: 10.3109/10929088.2010.541620.
Dasgupta P, Jones A, Gill IS. Robotic urological surgery: a perspective. BJU international, 2005; 95(1), 20-23. Doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05241.x
Murphy D, Challacombe B, Khan MS, et al. Robotic technology in urology. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 2006; 82(973), 743–747. Doi:10.1136/pgmj.2006.048140
Kumar R, Hemal AK. Emerging role of robotics in urology. Journal of minimal access surgery, 2005; 1(4), 202. Doi: 10.4103/0972-9941.19268
Hemal AK, Menon M. Laparoscopy, robot, telesurgery and urology: future perspective. Journal of postgraduate medicine, 2002; 48(1), 39.
Marescaux J, Leroy J, Gagner M, et al. Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery. Nature, 2001; 413(6854), 379-380. Doi: 10.1038/35096636
Finlay PA. Clinical experience with a goniometric head-controlled laparoscope manipulator. In IARP Symposium on Medical Robotics, 1996.
Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody JO, et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy, a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy for management of localized carcinoma of the prostate: experience of over 1100 cases. Urologic Clinics, 2004; 31(4), 701-717. Doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2004.06.011.
Moore LJ, Wilson MR, Waine E, et al. Robotic technology results in faster and more robust surgical skill acquisition than traditional laparoscopy. Journal of robotic surgery, 2015; 9(1), 67-73. Doi: 10.1007/s11701-014-0493-9.
Harris SJ, Arambula-Cosio F, Mei Q, et al. The Probot—an active robot for prostate resection. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 1997; 211(4), 317-325. Doi:10.1243/0954411971534449.
Kavoussi LR, Moore RG, Adams JB, et al. Comparison of robotic versus human laparoscopic camera control. The Journal of urology, 1995; 154(6), 2134-2136
Şah C. Does Robot-assisted Surgery in Urology Has Benefits? The Current Status. Bull Urooncol, 2019; 18, 117-119. DOI: 10.4274/uob.galenos.2019.1202.
Menon M, Kaul S, Bhandarı A, et al. Potency following robotic radical prostatectomy: a questionnaire based analysis of outcomes after conventional nerve sparing and prostatic fascia sparing techniques. The journal of urology, 2005; 174(6), 2291–2296. Doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000181825.5.
Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M, et al. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot‐assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU international, 2003; 92(3), 205-210. Doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2003.04311.x.
Rocco B, Gregori A, Stener S, et al. Posterior Reconstruction of the Rhabdosphincter Allows a Rapid Recovery of Continence After Transperitoneal Videolaparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy. European Urology, 2007; 51(4), 996-1003. Doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.014.
Tewari A, Jhaveri J, Rao S, et al. Total reconstruction of the vesico‐urethral junction. BJU international, 2008; 101(7), 871-877. Doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07424.x.
Ilic D, Evans SM, Allan CA, et al. Laparoscopic and robot‐assisted vs open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review. BJU international, 2018; 121(6), 845-853. Doi: 10.1111/bju.14062.
Haglind E, Carlsson S, Stranne J, et al. Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial. European urology, 2015; 68(2), 216-225. Doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.02.029.
Jeong IG, Khandwala YS, Kim JH, et al. Association of robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with perioperative outcomes and health care costs, 2003 to 2015. Jama, 2017; 318(16), 1561-1568. Doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.14586.
Asimakopoulos AD, Miano R, Annino F, et al. Robotic radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review. BMC urology, 2014; 14(1), 1-6. Doi: 10.1186/1471-2490-14-75.
Shen Z, Xie L, Xie W, et al. The comparison of perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted and open partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World journal of surgical oncology, 2016; 14(1), 1-13. Doi: 10.1186/s12957-016-0971-9.
Lauridsen SV, Tønnesen H, Jensen BT, et al. Complications and health-related quality of life after robot-assisted versus open radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of four RCTs. Systematic Reviews, 2017; 6(1), 1-12. Doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0547-y.
Menon M, Hemal AK, Tewari A, et al. Nerve‐sparing robot‐assisted radical cystoprostatectomy and urinary diversion. BJU international, 2003; 92(3), 232-236. Doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2003.04329.x
Davis RB, Farber NJ, Tabakin AL, et al. Open versus robotic cystectomy: comparison of outcomes. Investigative and Clinical Urology, 2016, 57.Suppl 1: S36-S43. Doi: 10.4111/icu.2016.57.S1.S36.
Xia L, Wang X, Xu T, et al. Robotic versus open radical cystectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 2015; 10(3), e0121032. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121032.
Piazza L, Caragliano P, Scardilli M, et al. Laparoscopic robot-assisted right adrenalectomy and left ovariectomy (case reports). Chir Ital. 1999; 51(6):465–466.
Economopoulos KP, Mylonas KS, Stamou AA, et al. Laparoscopic versus robotic adrenalectomy: a comprehensive meta-analysis. International Journal of Surgery, 2017; 38, 95-104. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.12.118.
Davol P, Sumfest J, Rukstalis D. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Urology, 2006; 67(1), 199-e7. Doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.07.022.
Lloyd P, Hong A, Furrer MA, et al. A comparative study of peri-operative outcomes for 100 consecutive post-chemotherapy and primary robot-assisted and open retroperitoneal lymph node dissections. World Journal of Urology, 2022; 40(1), 119-126. Doi: 10.1007/s00345-021-03832-0.
Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, et al. Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology, 2002; 60(3), 509-513. Doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)01761-2.
Varda BK, Johnson EK, Clark C, et al. National trends of perioperative outcomes and costs for open, laparoscopic and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty. The Journal of urology, 2014; 191(4), 1090-1096. Doi: 10.1016/j.uro.2013.10.077
Song SH, Kim KS. Current status of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in pediatric urology. Korean Journal of Urology, 2014; 55(8), 499-504. Doi: 10.4111/kju.2014.55.8.499.
Lendvay TS, Hannaford B, Satava RM. Future of Robotic Surgery. The Cancer Journal, 2013; 19(2), 109–119. Doi:10.1097/ppo.0b013e31828bf822.
Brahmbhatt JV, Gudeloglu A, Liverneaux P, et al. Robotic Microsurgery Optimization. Archives of Plastic Surgery, 2014; 41(3), 225. Doi:10.5999/aps.2014.41.3.225.
Tewari AK, Shevchuk MM, Sterling J, et al. Multiphoton microscopy for structure identification in human prostate and periprostatic tissue: implications in prostate cancer surgery. BJU International, 2011; 108(9), 1421–1429. Doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.2011.10169.x.
Casale P, Lendvay TS. Robotic hypospadias surgery: a new evolution. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2009; 3(4), 239–244. Doi:10.1007/s11701-009-0165-3.
Secin FP, Coelho R, Monzó Gardiner JI, et al. Robotic surgery in public hospitals of Latin-America: a castle of sand? World journal of urology, 2018; 36(4), 595-601. Doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2227-5.
