TY - JOUR
T1 - EAU guidelines on robotic and single-site surgery in Urology
AU - Merseburger, Axel S.
AU - Herrmann, Thomas R.W.
AU - Shariat, Shahrokh F.
AU - Kyriazis, Iason
AU - Nagele, Udo
AU - Traxer, Olivier
AU - Liatsikos, Evangelos N.
N1 - Funding Information:
Financial disclosures : Axel S. Merseburger certifies that all conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: Axel S. Merseburger is a company consultant for Ipsen Pharma, Bayer, and Astellas. He receives company speaker honoraria from Ipsen Pharma, Wyeth, Astellas, Novartis, Pfizer, and SEP. He participates in trials for Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, TEVA, Novartis, and Astellas. He receives research grants from Wyeth. Thomas R.W. Herrmann is a company consultant for Karl Storz. Shahrokh F. Shariat is the owner or co-owner of the following patents: Shariat S, Slawin K, inventors. Methods to determine prognosis after therapy for prostate cancer. US patent application serial number: docket #60/266,976. May 31, 2001; Shariat S, Lerner S, Slawin K, inventors. Methods to determine prognosis after therapy for bladder cancer. US patent application serial number: Docket #675.003US1. June 1, 2001; Shariat S, Slawin K, Kattan M, Scardino P, inventors. Pre- and posttreatment nomograms for predicting recurrence in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer that includes the blood markers interlukin-6 soluble receptor and transforming growth. Slawin K, Kattan M, Shariat S, Stephenson A, Scardino P, inventors. Nomogram for predicting outcome of salvage radiotherapy for suspected local recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. US patent application serial number: Docket #. Fi; Shariat S, inventor. Solube fas: a promising novel urinary marker for the detection of bladder transitional cell carcinoma (UTSD: 1666). US patent application serial in process. He is a company consultant for Ferring Pharmaceuticals and participates in trials for Alere. Iason Kyriazis and Evangelos N. Liatsikos have nothing to disclose. Udo Nagele owns patents and receives royalties, fellowship grants, and travel grants from Karl Storz. Olivier Traxer is a company consultant for Coloplast, Socomed, Promepla, AMS, Cook Medical, and Boston Scientific.
Copyright:
Copyright 2014 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2013/8
Y1 - 2013/8
N2 - Context This is a short version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on robotic and single-site surgery in urology, as created in 2013 by the EAU Guidelines Office Panel on Urological Technologies. Objective To evaluate current evidence regarding robotic and single-site surgery in urology and to provide clinical recommendations. Evidence acquisition A comprehensive online systematic search of the literature according to Cochrane recommendations was performed in July 2012, identifying data from 1990 to 2012 regarding robotic and single-site surgery in urology. Evidence synthesis There is a lack of high-quality data on both robotic and single-site surgery for most upper and lower urinary tract operations. Mature evidence including midterm follow-up data exists only for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. In the absence of high-quality data, the guidelines panel's recommendations were based mostly on the review of low-level evidence and expert opinions. Conclusions Robot-assisted urologic surgery is an emerging and safe technology for most urologic operations. Further documentation including long-term oncologic and functional outcomes is deemed necessary before definite conclusions can be drawn regarding the superiority or not of robotic assistance compared with the conventional laparoscopic and open approaches. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery is a novel laparoscopic technique providing a potentially superior cosmetic outcome over conventional laparoscopy. Nevertheless, further advantages offered by this technology are still under discussion and not yet proven. Due to the technically demanding character of the single-site approach, only experienced laparoscopic surgeons should attempt this technique in clinical settings. Patient summary This work represents the shortened version of the 2013 European Association of Urology guidelines on robotic and single-site surgery. The authors systematically evaluated published evidence in these fields and concluded that robotic assisted surgery is possible and safe for most urologic operations. Whilst laparoendoscopic single-site surgery is performed using the fewest incisions, the balance between risk and benefit is currently unclear. The evidence to support the conclusions in this guideline was generally poor, but best for robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. As such, these recommendations were based upon expert opinion, and further high-quality research is needed in this field.
AB - Context This is a short version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on robotic and single-site surgery in urology, as created in 2013 by the EAU Guidelines Office Panel on Urological Technologies. Objective To evaluate current evidence regarding robotic and single-site surgery in urology and to provide clinical recommendations. Evidence acquisition A comprehensive online systematic search of the literature according to Cochrane recommendations was performed in July 2012, identifying data from 1990 to 2012 regarding robotic and single-site surgery in urology. Evidence synthesis There is a lack of high-quality data on both robotic and single-site surgery for most upper and lower urinary tract operations. Mature evidence including midterm follow-up data exists only for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. In the absence of high-quality data, the guidelines panel's recommendations were based mostly on the review of low-level evidence and expert opinions. Conclusions Robot-assisted urologic surgery is an emerging and safe technology for most urologic operations. Further documentation including long-term oncologic and functional outcomes is deemed necessary before definite conclusions can be drawn regarding the superiority or not of robotic assistance compared with the conventional laparoscopic and open approaches. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery is a novel laparoscopic technique providing a potentially superior cosmetic outcome over conventional laparoscopy. Nevertheless, further advantages offered by this technology are still under discussion and not yet proven. Due to the technically demanding character of the single-site approach, only experienced laparoscopic surgeons should attempt this technique in clinical settings. Patient summary This work represents the shortened version of the 2013 European Association of Urology guidelines on robotic and single-site surgery. The authors systematically evaluated published evidence in these fields and concluded that robotic assisted surgery is possible and safe for most urologic operations. Whilst laparoendoscopic single-site surgery is performed using the fewest incisions, the balance between risk and benefit is currently unclear. The evidence to support the conclusions in this guideline was generally poor, but best for robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. As such, these recommendations were based upon expert opinion, and further high-quality research is needed in this field.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84879931290&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.034
DO - 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.034
M3 - Journal articles
C2 - 23764016
AN - SCOPUS:84879931290
SN - 0302-2838
VL - 64
SP - 277
EP - 291
JO - European Urology
JF - European Urology
IS - 2
ER -