Background: Robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) is being widely accepted in the field of urology as a replacement for conventional laparoscopy (CL). Nevertheless, the process of its integration in clinical routines has been rather spontaneous. Objective: To determine the prevalence of robotic systems (RS) in urological clinics in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, the acceptance of RAL among urologists as a replacement for CL and its current use for 25 different urological indications. Materials and Methods: To elucidate the practice patterns of RAL, a survey at hospitals in Germany, Austria and Switzerland was conducted. All surgically active urology departments in Germany (303), Austria (37) and Switzerland (84) received a questionnaire with questions related to the one-year period prior to the survey. Results: The response rate was 63%. Among the participants, 43% were universities, 45% were tertiary care centres, and 8% were secondary care hospitals. A total of 60 RS (Germany 35, Austria 8, Switzerland 17) were available, and the majority (68%) were operated under public ownership. The perception of RAL and the anticipated superiority of RAL significantly differed between robotic and non-robotic surgeons. For only two urologic indications were more than 50% of the procedures performed using RAL: pyeloplasty (58%) and transperitoneal radical prostatectomy (75%). On average, 35% of robotic surgeons and only 14% of non-robotic surgeons anticipated RAL superiority in some of the 25 indications. Conclusions: This survey provides a detailed insight into RAL implementation in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. RAL is currently limited to a few urological indications with a small number of high-volume robotic centres. These results might suggest that a saturation of clinics using RS has been achieved but that the existing robotic capacities are being utilized ineffectively. The possible reasons for this finding are discussed, and certain strategies to solve these problems are offered.

Keywords:
Austria, da Vinci, Europe, Germany, Indications, Marketing, Prevalence, Surgical procedures, Robot assisted laparoscopy, Robotics
1.
Binder J, Kramer W: Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2001;87:408-410.
2.
Klingler DW, Hemstreet GP, Balaji KC: Feasibility of robotic radical nephrectomy - initial results of single-institution pilot study. Urology 2005;65:1086-1089.
3.
Sung GT, Gill IS, Hsu TH: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a pilot study. Urology 1999;53:1099-1103.
4.
Merseburger AS, Herrmann TR, Shariat SF, et al: EAU guidelines on robotic and single-site surgery in urology. Eur Urol 2013;64:277-291.
5.
Aboumarzouk OM, Stein RJ, Eyraud R, et al: Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2012;62:1023-1033.
6.
Braga LH, Pace K, DeMaria J, Lorenzo AJ: Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: effect on operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and success rate. Eur Urol 2009;56:848-857.
7.
Porpiglia F, Morra I, Lucci Chiarissi M, et al: Randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2013;63:606-614.
8.
Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, et al: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:382-404.
9.
Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, et al: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:405-417.
10.
Alemozaffar M, Chang SL, Kacker R, Sun M, DeWolf WC, Wagner AA: Comparing costs of robotic, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy. J Endourol 2013;27:560-565.
11.
Seideman CA, Sleeper JP, Lotan Y: Cost comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2012;26:1044-1048.
12.
Close A, Robertson C, Rushton S, et al: Comparative cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of men with localised prostate cancer: a health technology assessment from the perspective of the UK national health service. Eur Urol 2013;64:361-369.
13.
Hohwü L, Borre M, Ehlers L, Venborg Pedersen K: A short-term cost-effectiveness study comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Med Econ 2011;14:403-409.
14.
Thorsteinsdottir T, Stranne J, Carlsson S, et al: LAPPRO: a prospective multicentre comparative study of robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2011;45:102-112.
15.
Imkamp F, Herrmann TR, Stolzenburg JU, et al: Development of urologic laparoscopy in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland: a survey among urologists. World J Urol 2014;32:1363-1374.
16.
Ghani KR, Trinh QD, Menon M: Vattikuti institute prostatectomy - technique in 2012. J Endourol 2012;26:1558-1565.
17.
Valdivieso RF, Hueber PA, Zorn KC: Robot assisted radical prostatectomy: how I do it. Part II: surgical technique. Can J Urol 2013;20:7073-7078.
18.
Long JA, Yakoubi R, Lee B, et al: Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for complex tumors: comparison of perioperative outcomes. Eur Urol 2012;61:1257-1262.
19.
Haber GP, White WM, Crouzet S, et al: Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: single-surgeon matched cohort study of 150 patients. Urology 2010;76:754-758.
20.
Ramsay C, Pickard R, Robertson C, et al: Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess 2012;16:1-313.
21.
Kojima Y, Takahashi N, Haga N, et al: Urinary incontinence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: pathophysiology and intraoperative techniques to improve surgical outcome. Int J Urol 2013;20:1052-1063.
22.
Herrmann TR, Rabenalt R, Stolzenburg JU, et al: Oncological and functional results of open, robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does surgical approach and surgical experience matter? World J Urol 2007;25:149-160.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.