Search

Planning complex operations such as robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy requires surgeons to review 2-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) cross-sectional images to understand 3-dimensional (3D), patient-specific anatomy. We sought to determine surgical outcomes for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy when surgeons reviewed 3D, virtual reality (VR) models for operative planning.A multicenter, randomized, single-blind clinical trial was conducted from January 2019 to December 2020. Patients undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were prospectively enrolled and randomized to either a control group undergoing usual preoperative planning with prostate biopsy results and MRI only or to an intervention group where MRI and biopsy results were supplemented with a 3D VR model. The primary outcome measure was margin status, and secondary outcomes were oncologic control, sexual function and urinary function.Ninety-two patients were analyzed, with trends toward lower positive margin rates (33% vs 25%) in the intervention group, no significant difference in functional outcomes and no difference in traditional operative metrics (p0.05). Detectable postoperative prostate specific antigen was significantly lower in the intervention group (31% vs 9%, p=0.036). In 32% of intervention cases, the surgeons modified their operative plan based on the model. When this subset was compared to the control group, there was a strong trend toward increased bilateral nerve sparing (78% vs 92%), and a significantly lower rate of postoperative detectable prostate specific antigen in the intervention subset (31% vs 0%, p=0.038).This randomized clinical trial demonstrated patients whose surgical planning involved 3D VR models have better oncologic outcomes while maintaining functional outcomes.

To standardize nomenclature and acronyms applied to robotic procedures in urology.A review of the literature for robotic procedures in urology was performed. In addition, various acronyms were queried and frequency of use was noted. Additional literature reviewed included articles on standardization of scientific nomenclature used in other disciplines of health care. This topic was discussed within the newly formed working group of urologic robotic surgeons (WURS).There is wide variation in the terminology and use of acronyms for robotic prostate and kidney procedures. The application of robotic, robot, robotic laparoscopic, robot laparoscopic, robotic-assisted, robot-assisted, robotic assisted, robot assisted, robotic-assisted laparoscopic, robot-assisted laparoscopic, robotic assisted laparoscopic, robot assisted laparoscopic, and robotic computer-assisted to procedures such as pyeloplasty and radical prostatectomy is far from uniform or standardized. Queries and searches using acronyms such as RALP, RARP, RRP, and RP yielded publications discussing both prostate and renal procedures applying the same acronyms. There are established databases of abbreviations and acronyms, including ARGH, SaRad, Acromed, and the Stanford Biomedical Abbreviation Server.Standardization of the nomenclature applied to urologic robotic surgery is needed as the robotic literature continues to grow. The recommendation from the Scientific Committee of the Working Group of Urologic Robotic Surgeons is to apply "robot assisted" to the already established nomenclature currently used to describe equivalent open procedures. The use of standardized and uniform terminology for procedures performed with robots will facilitate literature search and research efforts in the future. The role of standardized nomenclature for billing purposes remains to be seen.