Over the past three decades, rapid development and application of minimally invasive surgical techniques has fundamentally altered the way urologists care for patients with urologic malignancies. The short-term gains of decreased blood loss, improved convalescence, and improved cosmesis have resulted in the rapid adoption of laparoscopy and robotics, and as a result the vast majority of prostate and kidney surgeries are now performed using the robotic platform in the absence of true long-term outcome improvement or cost benefits.
In this chapter, a series of review articles highlight current controversies surrounding the adoption of minimally invasive surgical techniques for urologic malignancies and summarize the existing literature supporting their use.
Current controversies in minimally invasive urologic oncology
Diffusion and adoption of the surgical robot in urology
Comparative effectiveness of robotic and open radical prostatectomy
A review of technical progression in the robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
Contemporary outcomes following robotic prostatectomy for locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer
Outcomes and expanding indications for robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer
Robotic renal surgery for renal cell carcinoma with inferior vena cava thrombus
The future of “Retro” robotic partial nephrectomy
Robotic assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy: a review of what we do and don’t know
Contemporary techniques and outcomes of robotic assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion
Role of lymph node dissection at the time of open or minimally invasive nephroureterectomy
Open versus minimally invasive surgery for suspected adrenocortical carcinoma
Technical management of inguinal lymph-nodes in penile cancer: open versus minimal invasive
Robotic assisted reconstruction for complications following urologic oncologic procedures
The past, present, and future of urological quality improvement collaboratives
Minimizing opioid consumption following robotic surgery
Disclosure:
The focused issue “Controversies in Minimally Invasive Urologic Oncology” was commissioned by the editorial office, Translational Andrology and Urology without any sponsorship or funding. Marc C. Smaldone and Jeffrey J. Tomaszewski served as the unpaid Guest Editors for the focused issue.