Complications of Robotic Surgery and How to Prevent Them

  • Scott Van Appledorn
  • Anthony J. Costello


Robotic surgery has rapidly progressed into the mainstream of modern surgical practice. The da Vinci® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) has been particularly embraced by the urologic community. Some of the urologic applications include pyeloplasty, cystectomy with diversion, adrenalectomy, pelvic floor reconstruction, nephrectomy, and partial nephrectomy.1–6 However, the robotic system’s largest impact has been in its use for radical prostatectomy. It has been calculated that in 2005, 20% of all radical prostatectomies performed in the United States are performed using a robotic platform, and that number is projected to grow significantly. International usage is also gaining increased acceptance.


Radical Prostatectomy Robotic Surgery Surgical System Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Lateral Femoral Cutaneous Nerve 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, et al. Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology 2002;60:509–513.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Menon M, Hemal AK, Tewari A, et al. Nervesparing robot-assisted radical cystoprostatectomy and urinary diversion. BJU Int 2003;92:232–236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Desai MM, Gill IS, Kaouk JH, et al. Roboticassisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy. Urology 2002;60:1104–1107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Di Marco DS, Chow GK, Getman MT, et al. Roboticassisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Urology 2004;63: 373–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guillonneau B, Jayet C, Tewari A, et al. Robot assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy. J Urol 2001; 166:200–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peschel R, Neururer R, Blute ML, et al. Roboticassisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Urol 2004;171(suppl 4):471.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mariano ER, Furukawa L, Woo RK, et al. Anesthetic concerns for robot-assisted laparoscopy in an infant. Anesth Analg 2004;99:1665–1667.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hemal AK, Eun D, Tewari A, et al. Nuances in the optimum placement of ports in pelvic and upper urinary tract surgery using the da Vinci robot. Urol Clin N Am 2004;31:683–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D, et al. Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003;170:1738–1741.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Litwiller JP, Wells RE Jr, Halliwill JR, et al. Effect of lithotomy positions on strain of the obturator and lateral femoral cutaneous nerves. Clin Anat 2004;17:45–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wolf JS Jr, Marcovich R, Gill IS, et al. Survey of neuromuscular injuries to the patient and surgeon during urologic laparoscopic surgery. Urology 2000;55:831–836.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tuncali BE, Tuncali B, Kuvaki B, et al. Radial nerve injury after general anaesthesia in the lateral decubitus position. Anesthesia 2005;60:602.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Warner MA, Warner ME, Martin JT. Ulnar neuropathy. Incidence, outcome, and risk factors in sedated or anesthetized patients. Anesthesiology 1994;81:1332–1340.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dimachkie MM, Ohanian S, Groves MD, et al. Peripheral nerve injury after brief lithotomy for transurethral collagen injection. Urology 2000; 56:669.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reisiger KE, Landman J, Kibel A, et al. Laparoscopic renal surgery and the risk of rhabdomyolysis:diagnosisandtreatment.Urology2005;66(suppl 5A):29–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bird VG, Winfield HN. Laparoscopy in urology: physiological considerations. Hosp Physician 2002;10:1–19.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pearle MS. Physiologic effects of pneumoperitoneum. In Smith AD, et al., eds. Smith’s Textbook of Endourology. St. Louis, MO: Quality Medical Publishers; 1996:754–772.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Richter B, Kloppik E. Anesthesiological problems in laparoscopy. In Fahlenkamp D, Loening SA, Winfield HN, eds. Advances in Laparoscopic Surgery. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1995:33–37.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nguyen MM, Das S. The evolution of robotic surgery. Urol Clin N Am 2004;31:653–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Venkatesh V, Landman J, Sundaram CP, et al. Prevention, recognition, and management of laparoscopic complications in urologic surgery. AUA Update Series 2003;12(40):322–331.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thomas MA, Koon HR, Ong AM, et al. Optical access trocar injuries in urological laparoscopic surgery. J Urol 2003;170:61–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Penfield A. How to prevent complications of open laparoscopy. J Reprod Med 1985;30:660–663.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Appledorn S, Bouchier-Hayes D, Agarwal D, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy: technique after 150 cases. Urology 2006;67(2):364–367.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rubenstein JN, Blunt LW Jr, Lin HM, et al. Safety and efficacy of 12-mm radial dilating ports for laparoscopic access. BJU Int 2003;92:327–329.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM. Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery 1992;111:518.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Eichel L, Ahlering TE, Clayman RV. Robotics in urologic surgery: risks and benefits. AUA Update Series 2005;24(13):106–111.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Patel VR, Tully AS, Holmes R, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting —the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol 2005;174:269–272.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bhandari A, McIntire L, Kaul SA, et al. Perioperative complications of robotic radical prostatectomy after the learning curve. J Urol 2005;174: 915–918.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bentas W, Wolfram M, Jones J, et al. Robotic technology and the translation of open radical prostatectomy to laparoscopy: the early Frankfurt experience with robotic radical prostatectomy and one year follow-up. Eur Urol 2003;44: 175–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Costello AJ, Haxhimolla H, Crowe H, et al. Instillation of telerobotic surgery and initial experience of telerobotic prostatectomy. BJU Int 2005;96: 34–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Koya MP, Manoharan M, Kim SS, et al. Venous thromboembolism in radical prostatectomy: is heparinoid prophylaxis warranted? BJU Int 2005; 96:1019–1021.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Edwards RA, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy: a technique to reduce pT2 positive margins. Urology 2004;64:1224–1228.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ong AM, Su L, Varkarakis I, Inagaki T, et al. Nerve sparing radical prostatectomy: effects of hemostatic energy sources on the recovery of cavernous nerve function in a canine model. J Urol 2004; 172:1318–1322.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gettman MT, Hoznek A, Salomon L, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the extraperitoneal approach using the da Vinci robotic system. J Urol 2003;170:416–419.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brown JA, Rodin D, Lee B, et al. Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal approach to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: an assessment of 156 cases. Urology 2005;65:320–324.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Van Velthoven RF, Ahlering TE, Peltier A, et al. Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis: the single knot method. Urology 2003;61:699–702.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ball AJ, Bordeau KP, Davis JW, et al. Modified running vesicourethral anastomosis after robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: use of solitary Lapra-Ty to secure posterior approximation. Urology 2005;61:16–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Patel VR. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology 2005;66:45–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bentas W, Wolfram M. Da Vinci robot assisted Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty techniques and 1-year follow up. J World Urol 2003; 21:133–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Peschel R, Neururer R, Bartsch G, et al. Robotic pyeloplasty: technique and results. Urol Clin N Am 2004;31:737–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Siddiq FM, Leveillee RJ, Villicana P, et al. Computer-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: University of Miami experience with the da Vinci surgical system. J Endourol 2005;19:387–392.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Palese MA, Stifelman MD, Munver R, et al. Robotassisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: a combined experience. J Endourol 2005;19:382–386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mendez-Torres F, Woods M, Thomas R. Technical modifications for robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2005;19:393–396.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jarret TW, Chan DY, Charambura TC, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first 100 cases. J Urol 2002;167:1253–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Trablusi EJ, Guillonneau B. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2005;173:1072–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tewari A, Srivastava A, Menon M, et al. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robotassisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int 2003;92:205–210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Talamini MA, Chapman S, Horgan S, et al. A prospective analysis of 211 robotic-assisted surgical procedures. Surg Endosc 2003;17:1521–1524.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Multi-institutional review of pathological margins after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (LRP). Abstract #1158 presented Tuesday May 23, 2006 at American Urological Association meeting in Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Van Appledorn
    • 1
  • Anthony J. Costello
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of UrologyGulf Stream Urology AssociatesFort PierceUSA
  2. 2.The Epworth CentreRichmondAustralia

Personalised recommendations