Advertisement

Urology

  • Sijo Joseph ParekattilEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The use of the operating microscope for microsurgery in the 1970s has lead to the continued expansion of such technology in the operative management of male infertility and chronic testicular or groin pain. With greater patency rates and fertility rates of vasovasostomy performed with the operating microscope, the concepts of magnification have been successfully applied to vasoepididymostomy and varicocele ligation as well. More recently, microscopic spermatic cord neurolysis or denervation has demonstrated applicability to the treatment of groin and testicular pain. These procedures are technically demanding. The melding of improved visualization with magnification to an ergonomic platform that can be operated remotely has intuitive benefits to testicular and reproductive microsurgery. Robotic assistance during surgical procedures has been utilized in a wide array of surgical fields with the above-mentioned benefits. This chapter covers the latest developments in the robotic microsurgical platform, robotic microsurgical tools and current evaluations of various robotic microsurgical applications for male infertility and patients with chronic testicular or groin pain.

Keywords

Male Infertility Spermatic Cord Groin Pain Chronic Groin Pain Novice Surgeon 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Al-Kandari AM et al (2007) Comparison of outcomes of different varicocelectomy techniques: open inguinal, laparoscopic, and subinguinal microscopic varicocelectomy: a randomized clinical trial. Urology 69:417–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Said S et al (2008) Varicocelectomy for male infertility: a comparative study of open, ­laparoscopic and microsurgical approaches. J Urol 180:266–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berger RE (1998) Triangulation end-to-side vasoepididymostomy. J Urol 159(6):1951–1953PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bourla DH et al (2008) Feasability study of intraocular robotic surgery with the Da Vinci ­surgical system. Retina 28:154–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Casale P (2008) Robotic pediatric urology. Expert Rev Med Devices 5:59–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cayan S, Shavakhabov S, Kadioglu A (2009) Treatment of palpable varicocele in infertile men: a meta-analysis to define the best technique. J Androl 30:33–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chan PT, Li PS, Goldstein M (2003) Microsurgical vasoepididymostomy: a prospective ­randomized study of 3 intussusception techniques in rats. J Urol 169:1924–1929PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen XF et al (2009) Comparative analysis of three different surgical approaches to ­varicocelectomy. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue 15:413–416PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Colombo JR Jr et al (2007) Robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: surgical techniques and outcomes. Int Braz J Urol 33:803–809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Corcione F et al (2005) Advantages and limits of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery: ­preliminary experience. Surg Endosc 19:117–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fleming C (2004) Robotic-assisted vasovasostomy. Urol Clin North Am 31:769–772PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fogdestam I, Fall M (1983) Microsurgical end-to-end and end-to-side epididymovasostomy to correct occlusive azoospermia. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 17:137–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guru KA et al (2007) Robotic-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy: assessment of postoperative pain. Can J Urol 14:3753–3756PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuang W et al (2004) Initial evaluation of robotic technology for microsurgical vasovasostomy. J Urol 171:300–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuang W et al (2005) Robotic-assisted vasovasostomy: a two-layer technique in an animal model. Urology 65:811–814PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Levine LA (2008) Microsurgical denervation of the spermatic cord. J Sex Med 5:526–529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marmar JL (2000) Modified vasoepididymostomy with simultaneous double needle placement, tubulotomy and tubular invagination. J Urol 163:483–486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marmar JL, Kim Y (1994) Subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy: a technical critique and statistical analysis of semen and pregnancy data. J Urol 152:1127–1132PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oliveira RG et al (2009) Microsurgical testicular denervation for the treatment of chronic testicular pain initial results. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 64:393–396Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Owen ER (2002) Microsurgical vasovasostomy: a reliable vasectomy reversal. J Urol 167:1205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Owen ER (1977) Microsurgical vasovasostomy: a reliable vasectomy reversal. Aust N Z J Surg 47:305–309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Parekattil SJ, Cohen M, Vieweg J (2009) Human robotic assisted bilateral vasoepididymostomy and vasovasostomy procedures: initial safety and efficacy trial. Proc SPIE 7161:71611LCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parekattil SJ, Moran ME (2010) Robotic instrumentation: evolution and microsurgical applications. Indian J Urol 26:395–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rodriguez E, Chitwood WR Jr (2008) Minimally invasive, robotic cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 85:357–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schiff J, Li PS, Goldstein M (2004) Robotic microsurgical vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy: a prospective randomized study in a rat model. J Urol 171:1720–1725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schiff J, Li PS, Goldstein M (2005) Robotic microsurgical vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy in rats. Int J Med Robot 1:122–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schlegel PN (1999) Testicular sperm extraction: microdissection improves sperm yield with minimal tissue excision. Hum Reprod 14:131–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schoor RA, Ross L, Niederberger C (2003) Robotic assisted microsurgical vasal reconstruction in a model system. World J Urol 21:48–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schultheiss D, Denil J (2002) History of the microscope and development of microsurgery: a revolution for reproductive tract surgery. Andrologia 34:234–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shu T, Taghechian S, Wang R (2008) Initial experience with robotic-assisted varicocelectomy. Asian J Androl 10:146–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Silber SJ (1975) Microsurgery in clinical urology. Urology 6:150–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Silber SJ (1978) Microscopic vasoepididymostomy: specific microanastomosis to the epididymal tubule. Fertil Steril 30:565–571PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Thomas AJ Jr (1987) Vasoepididymostomy. Urol Clin North Am 14:527–538PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyWinter Haven Hospital, University of FloridaWinter HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations