Ettore Mearini
Luigi Schips
Philippe Sèbe- 1Department of Medicine, Urology Clinic, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
- 2Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Urology, G. D'Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy
Editorial on the Research Topic
History, advantages, complications, and limits of minimally invasive urologic pelvic surgery
Since its introduction to the medical field, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been a topic of debate due to concerns about safety and efficacy across various specialties.
The first laparoscopic series of cases was described by Jacobaeus in 1910. However, it was only in 1924 that the use of carbon dioxide instead of air was proposed by Zollikofer. Initially, laparoscopy was confined to the gynecological field, but it was later adopted by urology in 1976, when Cortesi used it for undescended testis. However, early experiences were fraught with difficulties, which included long operative times, surgical failures, and a high rate of complications (1, 2). In laparoscopic procedures, many of the latter were due to surgeons being unfamiliar with the technique (2, 3). However, by the 1990s, more surgeons had completed the learning curve, which led to a wider adoption of laparoscopy for many procedures (4, 5). Its advantages include a magnification of the surgical field, faster postoperative recovery, and better cosmetic results (5). During the “golden age” of laparoscopy, the development of the first robotic systems in medicine began. The necessity for remote surgeries due to global wars and the dream of men on Mars led to the development of the first master-slave robotic system in the 1990s (6). The evolution continued with the creation of an endoscopic camera manipulator that could be controlled by the surgeon's voice commands. This marked the first development of a system capable of replicating the movements of the surgeon's arm, called the ZEUS system by Computer Motion. The latter merged with Intuitive Surgical®, leading to the birth of the widely known DaVinci® robotic system (6). Further development resulted in the creation of additional robotic systems with unique characteristics, as highlighted by Dong et al. in their prospective study of retroperitoneal partial adrenalectomy (7). These robotic systems have comparable outcomes to the DaVinci® robotic system.
The widespread adoption of robotic systems in surgery can be attributed to the experience gained by many surgeons with laparoscopy and the additional benefits brought by this technique. These benefits include improved precision of movements, better surgical dissection, and enhanced bleeding control. The advantages of MIS have transformed the way surgical techniques are learned. The magnification of the surgical field has led to a redefinition of surgical boundaries, resulting in a smaller visual space and limited control of surrounding structures. The magnification and precision of movements have shifted the surgical focus from a tactile to a visual approach, leading to longer operative times but also reducing surgical and functional complications. All of the above, along with the implementation of protocols for enhanced recovery after surgery, has led to a better understanding of this type of high-cost surgery, as emphasized by Lei et al. in their contribution to this Research Topic (8).
Unfortunately, minimally invasive surgery is not always applicable, with its major limitations becoming apparent in cases of advanced disease (9–12). In such situations, complications can arise during surgery, making it even more important for surgeons and patients to make informed decisions together. The Clavien-Dindo classification system has standardized the reporting of complications since its initial implementation and has been updated with the latest EAU intraoperative adverse incident classification (13). Standardizing surgical complications and functional sequelae helps to reduce their impact, improve knowledge, and enhance treatment outcomes. However, the classification systems used in research lack a shared management approach to standardize results and lack basic tools to help patients better understand complications. The classification system enables healthcare providers to explain the possible complications associated with surgeries such as robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in advanced disease or cystectomy, as described by Cochetti et al. and Paladini et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification aims to categorize possible complications for all surgical interventions, but specific complications must be identified for each procedure (14–17).
The limits and complications of MIS compared to the open surgical technique were widely discussed when it was first introduced. However, after several years, MIS gained wider adoption, with many highly experienced open surgeons performing it. With the emergence of new technologies and technical skills in the urological field, many new urologists now have extensive MIS experience but limited experience with open surgery. Despite more than 20 years of MIS, its limitations, complications, and relative management techniques are still evolving. Therefore, it is essential to investigate the issue of limitations and complications to prevent them and make informed decisions about their management.
This research topic emphasizes the importance of applying complication classification systems to report unexpected events to improve knowledge and evidence of urological complications, with the ultimate goal of developing guidelines for complication management.
Author contributions
EM: Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. PS: Conceptualization, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. LS: Conceptualization, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Ozkara H, Watson LR. Laparoscopic surgery in urology. Int Urol Nephrol. (1992) 24(5):461–4. doi: 10.1007/BF02550111
2. Crist DW, Gadacz TR. Complications of laparoscopic surgery. Surg Clin North Am. (1993) 73(2):265–89. doi: 10.1016/S0039-6109(16)45981-5
3. Capelouto CC, Kavoussi LR. Complications of laparoscopic surgery. Urology. (1993) 42(1):2–12. doi: 10.1016/0090-4295(93)90324-4
4. Kumar U, Gill IS. Learning curve in human laparoscopic surgery. Curr Urol Rep. (2006) 7(2):120–4. doi: 10.1007/s11934-006-0070-5
5. Garry R. Laparoscopic surgery. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. (2006) 20(1):89–104. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2005.10.003
6. Ghezzi T L, Corleta O C. 30 years of robotic surgery. World J Surg. (2016) 40(10):2550–7. doi: 10.1007/s00268-016-3543-9
7. Almujalhem A, Rha KH. Surgical robotic systems: what we have now? A urological perspective. BJUI Compass. (2020) 1(5):152–9. doi: 10.1002/bco2.31
8. Lei J, Huang K, Dai Y, Yin G. Evaluating outcomes of patient-centered enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn stones: an initial experience. Front Surg. (2023) 10:1138814. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1138814
9. Cochetti G, Del Zingaro M, Ciarletti S, Paladini A, Felici G, Stivalini D, et al. New evolution of robotic radical prostatectomy: a single center experience with PERUSIA technique. Appl Sci. (2021) 11(4):1513. doi: 10.3390/app11041513
10. Marchioni M, Primiceri G, Delli Pizzi A, Basilico R, Berardinelli F, Mincuzzi E, et al. Could bladder multiparametric MRI be introduced in routine clinical practice? Role of the new VI-RADS score: results from a prospective study. Clin Genitourin Cancer. (2020) 18(5):409–415.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2020.03.002
11. Marchioni M, Bandini M, Pompe RS, Martel T, Tian Z, Shariat SF, et al. The impact of lymph node dissection and positive lymph nodes on cancer-specific mortality in contemporary pT2-3 non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with radical nephrectomy. BJU Int. (2018) 121(3):383–92. doi: 10.1111/bju.14024
12. Pizzi A D, Mastrodicasa D, Taraschi A, Civitareale N, Mincuzzi E, Censi S, et al. Conspicuity and muscle-invasiveness assessment for bladder cancer using VI-RADS: a multi-reader, contrast-free MRI study to determine optimal b-values for diffusion-weighted imaging. Abdom Radiol (NY). (2022) 47(5):1862–72. doi: 10.1007/s00261-022-03490-9
13. Biyani CS, Pecanka J, Rouprêt M, Jensen JB, Mitropoulos D. Intraoperative adverse incident classification (EAUiaiC) by the European association of urology ad hoc complications guidelines panel. Eur Urol. (2020) 77(5):601–10. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.11.015
14. Cochetti G, Paladini A, Del Zingaro M, Ciarletti S, Pastore F, Massa G, et al. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal reconstruction of urinary diversion by mechanical stapler: prospective evaluation of early and late complications. Front Surg. (2023) 10:1157684. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1157684
15. Paladini A, Cochetti G, Felici G, Russo M, Saqer E, Cari L, et al. Complications of extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer: a single high-volume center experience. Front Surg. (2023) 10:1157528. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1157528
16. Alimi Q, Peyronnet B, Sebe P, Cote JF, Kammerer-Jacquet SF, Khene ZE, et al. Comparison of short-term functional, oncological, and perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy beyond the learning curve. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. (2018) 28(9):1047–52. doi: 10.1089/lap.2017.0724
Keywords: minimally invasive surgeries (MIS), robotic surgery, complications, surgical limits, laparoscopy, complications classification system
Citation: Mearini E, Schips L and Sèbe P (2023) Editorial: History, advantages, complications, and limits of minimally invasive urologic pelvic surgery. Front. Surg. 10:1260951. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1260951
Received: 18 July 2023; Accepted: 1 November 2023;
Published: 21 November 2023.
Edited by:
Richard Naspro, San Matteo Hospital Foundation (IRCCS), ItalyReviewed by:
Vincenzo Li Marzi, Careggi Hospital, ItalyMarco Paciotti, Humanitas Research Hospital, Italy
© 2023 Mearini, Schips and Sèbe. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Ettore Mearini ZXR0b3JlLm1lYXJpbmlAdW5pcGcuaXQ=