Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Viewpoint
  • Published:

Laparoscopic versus robotic radical prostatectomy

Nature Clinical Practice Urology volume 2, pages 60–61 (2005)Cite this article

The term 'robot' comes from the Czech word 'robota'. Generally translated as 'forced labor', the term was first used in 1920 by Karel Capek in his play RUR: Rossum's Universal Robots. Davies defined a surgical robot as “a powered computer-controlled manipulator with artificial sensing that can be reprogrammed to move and position tools to carry out a range of surgical tasks.”1 This definition distinguishes use of a surgical robot from computer-assisted surgery. For instance, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) machines are surgical robots according to this definition. The HIFU surgeon defines, on-screen, the prostate area to be treated and inputs information about shot duration, frequency, safety parameters and so on. The machine then automatically targets the treatment zone without further assistance, other than responses to warning messages.2 Another example is the robotic camera-holding arm used in laparoscopic surgery that specifically responds to a command according to selected parameters, without additional human assistance.

But what authors are usually referring to when they use the term 'robotic' with reference to laparoscopic surgery is the da Vinci™ machine.3,4,5,6 This is not a robot, but a computer-enhanced master–slave telemanipulator that allows remote manipulation of instruments in the operative field. Surgery performed with this tool should be designated 'remote assisted' or 'computer assisted'. The term 'robotic-assisted laparoscopy' (RAL) prevails, however, probably because 'advanced technology' has become synonymous with 'high quality', as in Capek's play.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Davies B (2000) A review of robotics in surgery. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 214: 129–140

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gelet A et al. (2001) Transrectal high intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: factors influencing the outcome. Eur Urol 40: 124–129

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bentas W et al. (2002) Laparoscopic transperitoneal adrenalectomy using a remote-controlled robotic surgical system. J Endourol 16: 373–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Horgan S et al. (2002) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for kidney transplantation. Transplantation 73: 1474–1479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hoznek A et al. (2002) Robotic assisted kidney transplantation: an initial experience. J Urol 167: 1604–1606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Menon M et al. (2002) Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol 168: 945–949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Menon M et al. (2003) Vattikuti Institute Prostatectomy: a single-team experience of 100 cases. J Endourol 17: 785–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ahlering TE et al. (2003) Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 170: 1738–1741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chan AC et al. (1997) Comparison of two-dimensional vs three-dimensional camera systems in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 11: 438–440

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. McDougall EM et al. (1996) Comparison of three-dimensional and two-dimensional laparoscopic video systems. J Endourol 10: 371–374

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Professor of Urology and Head of the Section of Minimally Invasive Surgery in the Department of Urology at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York

    Bertrand D Guillonneau

Authors
  1. Bertrand D Guillonneau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bertrand D Guillonneau.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guillonneau, B. Laparoscopic versus robotic radical prostatectomy. Nat Rev Urol 2, 60–61 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro0086

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro0086

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing