ReviewCurrent urology reports2014
What is next in robotic urology?
Review in Current urology reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Scientific evolution of robotic surgery in urogenital diseases: bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Diffusion of robotic-assisted laparoscopic technology across specialties: a national study from 2008 to 2013.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- Novel Technologies in Urologic Surgery: a Rapidly Changing Scenario.Current urology reports · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The application of robotic technology in surgical practice was developed during the past three decades, but its clinical application has made a significant impact during the last 10 years. Urologists have embraced surgical robots throughout their evolution, and robot-assisted urologic surgeries have matured into everyday clinical practice in many parts of the world. Long-term data from robot-assisted radical prostatectomies (RARP), an early robotic urologic surgery, has shown that the results are comparable to contemporary open radical prostatectomy (ORP) cohorts. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is largely restricted to high-volume academic centers; comparative studies have demonstrated significant advantages in favor of RAPN over laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) to achieve adequate warm ischemia time, surgical margins free of cancer cells, and no peri-operative complications. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy shows results that are comparable to contemporary open radical cystectomy. Several authors have reported the feasibility of robotic intracorporeal urinary diversion. The available long-term outcomes of robot-assisted urological surgeries are comparable to conventional open surgical methods and are associated with fewer complications. Surgical robots continue to evolve, and robotic engineers alongside surgeons strive hard to synthesize and evaluate novel robotic platforms, downsize hardware, and develop flexible instruments and newer technologies. Robotic applications available at this point represent the infancy of this technology. Future developments in robotics are profoundly limited to human imagination and can potentially scale to unimaginable heights. We would expect robots coupled with imaging and energies, aiming to provide accurate and reliable treatments which will be finely targeted by biogenetic information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.