Review Article

CURRENT ROLE OF ROBOTICS IN UROLOGY

Ashish Sabharwal*, Suvajit Pradhan** and Anant Kumar*** *Registrar,** Senior Registrar ,*** Senior Consultant, Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi 110 076, India. Correspondence to: Dr. Anant Kumar, Senior Consultant, Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi 110 076, India. e-mail: [email protected]

The most commonly used robotic device in Urology is the Da Vinci® system. This robot consists of three or four arms, one of which is used to hold and manipulate the laparoscopic camera while the others are used to manipulate specialized laparoscopic instruments with Endowrist® technology that allows 7 degrees of freedom. Robot is currently used primarily for radical where complex dissection and reconstruction can be performed in less than 2 hours with excellent outcomes. There is a progressive increase in the number of surgeries being performed by this device, which allows laparoscopy naive surgeons to offer the benefits of minimally invasive surgery to their patients. The other surgeries where this device has been used to benefit are pyeloplasty, cystectomy with urinary diversion, nephrectomy and ureteric re-implant. The principal drawbacks of the device are the steep cost of machine and disposables. However, the benefits achieved in terms of improved surgical precision, magnified 3 dimensional vision, scaling of movements, remote telerobotic surgery and as a teaching tool will help the robot establish a definitive place in the urologic armamentarium. Key words: Robotic Surgery, Da Vinci ®, Urology, Telerobotic.

HISTORY OF ROBOTICS Automated endoscope system for optimal positioning (AESOP) from computer motion (Goleta, CA) was the first THE term robot is derived from a Czech word robota surgical robot to get food and drug administration (FDA) meaning ‘forced labor.’ The concept of robot can be traced approval for clinical use in 1993. The AESOP system is six back to 3000 b.c. The famous renaissance artist Leonardo degrees of freedom (DOF) of movements’ robotic arm that Da Vinci was said to have a mechanical lion that walked and mimics form and function of human arm to position an roared [1]. endoscope. The arm can be controlled either by a foot pedal; or by hand control; or voice command. Robots as we know them today were developed after World War II due to increased need of automation in Stanford Research Institute (SRI, Stanford, CA) automobile. General motors were the first major companies developed a tele-presence surgical system for open surgical to ever use a robot in 1961. procedures [3]. This system combined advances in remote manipulations with basic force feedback, stereoscopic Orthopedics and neurosurgery were the first specialties imaging, multimodal sensory feedback, and ergonomic to test the concept that the robots may be more precise than design. humans. An orthopedic system RobotDoc (Integrated Surgical Systems, Sacramento, CA) was used during Intuitive SurgicalTM (Mountain View, CA) was total hip replacement surgery [2]. In early 1980s with founded in 1995. They licensed technology and hired introduction of good optics, video equipment, and appro- engineers from SRI, MIT, and IBM. The first prototype was priate instrumentation general surgeons started exploring built in 1996 for animal trials. Second prototype was tested new vistas of laparoscopic surgery in an attempt to minimize on humans in Belgium in 1997. The alpha prototype of the trauma associated with their surgical procedures. daVinci SystemTM was used for cardiac procedures in However, limitations of traditional laparoscopy such as two- Paris (France) and Leipzig (Germany). DaVinciTM dimensional vision, limited movement of instruments, Surgical System got FDA approval for laparoscopic use in complex reconstruction and difficult suturing and also 2000 and for thoracoscopic use in 2001. Presently, there are surgeon fatigue prompted the introduction and rapid over 220 robotic systems installed worldwide including 12 assimilation of robotic systems. in Asia and 3 in India.

365 Apollo Medicine, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 2006 Review Article

Computer Motion introduced its prototype Zeus computer to control and countercheck the performance of Telepresence Surgery System in 1996. This system also the machine. consisted of a camera-positioning arm and two instrument arms operating laparoscopic instruments; similar to Robotic arms (Fig.2), two surgical manipulators and conventional rigid instruments .Currently, computer motion one camera arm. The surgical manipulators drive the is conducting FDA approved clinical trials in laparoscopic, instruments and camera arm holds and moves the telescope thoracoscopic, and cardiac applications. and camera unit. The arms may be mounted on a cart (daVinci) or on the operating table (Zeus). The camera arm THE MAINSTREAM SURGICAL ROBOTS of Zeus is essentially an AESOP robot voice controlled by the surgeon. Two surgical robots are currently available for clinical applications the daVinciTM Surgical System (Intuitive Auxiliary or vision cart, containing light sources, Surgicals, Sunnyvale, CA) and ZeusTM Robotic Surgical camera control units, camera signal synchronizers, and System (Computer Motion, Altlanta, GA). Both the systems monitors for patient side assistants. have some similarities in their designs. They consist of following three basic parts. These systems have incorporated mechanisms to overcome the difficulties encountered by the minimally Surgeon’s console (Fig. 1) is the user interface of invasive surgeons. these robots. It consists of (1) Display system–a 2D or Stereoscopic display system; (2) Master arms or surgeons HAND-EYE COORDINATION handles - the surgeon moves the masters, the movements are In daVinci, the display system projects the image in the translated in real time into movements of instrument tips, direction of the surgeon’s hands via a mirror overlay optical the slaves. The masters also provide a force feedback to the system restoring hand eye coordination. Zeus system has a operating surgeon’s hands. In daVinci the masters can be high definition monitor at the eye level in front of the made to control camera movements by pressing a foot surgeon. paddle. Zeus system incorporates a HermesTM voice control system for camera movements; (3) Control panel–permits DEPTH PERCEPTION surgeon to choose and adjust various display and control options; and (4) CPU or the controller–high capacity DaVinci system has two separate optical channels. The telescope is a combination two 5 mm scopes enclosed side by side in an 11 mm sheath, one scope for each eye’s vision. The camera mounted atop these this telescope has two independent three chip CCDs that delivers pictures with 800 lines of resolution. These images are displayed on two cathode ray tube monitors, each displaying slightly different image to each eye giving a 3D vision with a wide stereo separation. The initial models of Zeus were shipped with 2D display but recent model is 3D capable.

Fig. 1. The console Fig. 2. The arms

Apollo Medicine, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 2006 366 Review Article

INTUITIVE MOVEMENTS

The CPU or the controller translates the movements of masters by surgeon in an intuitive way, i.e., movement of master to right is translated to movement of the slave instrument to the right. All the time this is happening, the movements and positions of slaves and masters are being checked and correlated in x, y and z -axis at more than 1000 times per second. The immense processing power of the controller also bring the visual and robotic frame of reference into precise registration giving surgeon a sense of immersion in the work. The force feedback lets surgeon feel large contact interactions and indicates robots workspace limits. The controller also permits the advanced features like clutching (indexing) between masters and slaves, smooth control at workspace limits, and gravity compensation.

PRECISION

Tremor eliminating algorithms are incorporated in both surgical robots. They filter out the natural hand tremors of the surgeon. The movements can be scaled down from 1 : 1 to 3 : 1, i.e., three-inch movement at the master is translated into one-inch movement at the instrument tip. Tremor filtering and scaling down of movements, coupled with the 12-15 magnification offered by the display systems bring unprecedented precision at the minimally invasive surgeon’s hand.

SEVEN DEGREE OF FREEDOM MOVEMENTS

DaVinci system’s slave arms with articulated instrument tips (EndowristTM) (Fig. 3) provide seven DOF movements Fig. 3. EndowristTM like human wrist. The slave arms provide outer pitch, outer yaw, roll, and insertion movements, while the articulated However, at least for the time-being, the costs of the device tips provide inner pitch, inner yaw, and grip. The initial Zeus preclude this from being a major reason for its use. systems had nonarticulating tip instruments (micro- assistTM). The recent models have instruments with DISADVANTAGES articulating tips (micro-jointTM). Cost ERGONOMIC DESIGN The device itself costs upwards of INR 5,00,00,000 and The surgeon consoles in both the systems are then requires annual maintenance and disposable ergonomically designed. Operating surgeon does not scrub instruments. This has probably been the biggest hindrance and performs whole surgery while sitting comfortably on to its widespread use but, as with other new technologies, the console (Fig.4). This eliminates limitations posed by this is likely to come down with time and greater physical fatigue to a conventional laparoscopic surgeon. availability.

TELESURGERY LOSS OF TACTILE OR HAPTIC SENSATION

Telesurgery devices have been used to perform remote Newer technologies are being developed to overcome telesurgery. This allows surgeons situated miles away from this problem and may be resolved within some time. the patient to perform surgery without actual contact. This UROLOGICAL APPLICATIONS can potentially have a major role in large countries such as India where expert help is not universally available. While it was initially described for and used in cardiac

367 Apollo Medicine, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 2006 Review Article

procedure on humans is radical by Abbou and coworkers in 2000. They used a daVinci system [11]. Since then several other groups have published small case series [12,13] of laparoscopic prostatectomies performed with daVinci robotic assistance. Guillonneau and associates have used AESOP in over 1000 laparoscopic radical prostatectomy at Montsouris Institute [14]. One of the largest experiences with robot assisted radical prostatectomy was at the Vattikuti Urology Institute with the daVinci system [15]. Robotic radical prostatectomy is clearly emerging as the front runner in new technologies in urology and these early results suggests that it may obtain a preeminent place in the management of cancer. RENAL SURGERY

The use of the robot for renal surgery is less well defined. Most renal procedures such as a nephrectomy are standardized laparoscopic procedures require no reconstruction. However, radical nephrectomy, radical Fig. 4. Surgeon sitting comfortably on the console nephroureterectomy and reconstructive renal and ureteral surgery are difficult for naive laparoscopic surgeons and surgery, the majority or robotic applications today are robot assistance offers definite advantages [16]. in the field of urology. The robot allows relatively less experienced laparoscopists to perform minimally invasive Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for uretero-pelvic junction surgery better results even after a short learning curve [4-6]. obstruction (UPJO) has become a standardized procedure with success rates equivalent to open pyeloplasty and The first urological robot, also known as URobot was minimal morbidity due to its less invasive nature [17,18]. the PROBOT in 1989, which was used in clinical trials for Robotic technology is ideally suited to decrease the technical transurethral resection of the prostate [7]. difficulty in this reconstructive procedure. Reports also show shorter operative and anastomotic times with the robot when In 1994, Potamianos looked into a robotic system to compared with pure laparoscopy [5]. assist in intraoperative percutaneous renal access [8]. The access needle was positioned by hand as prescribed by a ADRENALECTOMY computer, which formed the calyx location from multiple C-arm X-rays. Later, in-vitro experiments that evaluated the Horgan, et al. [19] reported the first human adrenal- system performance showed a targeting accuracy of less ectomy using the robot in 2001. There have been a number than 1.5 mm. of subsequent reports on the use of robot assistance for adrenalectomy and while there was a higher operative time The first robot to receive FDA approval was AESOP [8]. for robotic surgery, it progressively decreased with The possibility of stereotactic-robotic assistance using increasing experience [20,21]. an interface was first reported in 1997 [9]. The authors CYSTECTOMY AND URINARY DIVERSION successfully punctured the desired calyx in 10 out of 12 procedures using a robotic system. The following year, the Construction of the neobladder after radical cystectomy same authors described their robotic system “PAKY” which requires significant surgical skills and the robot is very permitted the insertion of a needle in both in-vitro porcine helpful for this step [22].With the possibility of fertility- model and actual patients using fluoroscopic guidance [10]. preserving cystectomy with orthotopic neobladder in The device was successful in each of its attempts within a females, robotic radical cystectomy may well become the mean access time of 8.2 min. standard of care for this debilitating condition.

Radical Prostatectomy OTHERS The first reported robotic assisted laparoscopic urology Robots are being used to help enhance surgical skills

Apollo Medicine, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 2006 368 Review Article and training [23]. Reports show that various other surgeries 7. http://pegasus.me.jhu.edu/~rwebster/index_files/ have been carried by robotic assistance like cadaveric renal pub_files/chapter.pdf transplantation with the entire vascular and uretero-vesical 8. Hemal AK, Menon M. Laparoscopy, robot, telesurgery anastomosis [24], robotic microsurgical and urology: future perspective. J Postgrad Med 2002; and vasoepididymostomy [25], ureteric reimplantation for 48: 39-41. vesicoureteric reflux [26,27]. 9. Cadeddu JA, Bzostek A, Schreiner S, Barnes AC, Roberts WW, Anderson JH, et al. A robotic system for FUTURE percutaneous renal access. J Urol 1997; 158: 1589- 1593. With increasing computing power, miniaturization, and 10. Cadeddu JA, Stoianovici D, Chen RN, Moore RG, advances in telecommunication, the surgical robots will Kavoussi LR. Stereotactic mechanical percutaneous become more versatile and affordable. Similarly, industry is renal access. J Endourol 1998; 12: 121-125. working on the development of instrumentation for suction, 11. Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L. Remote laparoscopic retraction, and hemostasis with these robots. There are plans radical prostatectomy carried out with a robot: report of a to develop surgical robots which are MR compatible, giving case. Prog Urol 2000; 10: 520. advantage of real time MR imaging to the surgeon while operating with the robot [28]. 12. Rassweiler J, Frede T, Stock C, Sentker L. Telesurgical laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Initial experience. Eur Urol 2001; 40: 75-83. CONCLUSIONS 13. Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic Robot assistance is emerging as a significant adjunct to radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2001; 58: 503. laparoscopy. The main advantages for this technology are 14. Guillonneau B, El-Fettouh H, Baumert H, Cathelineau X, its enhanced shorter learning curve, dexterity, precision and Doublet JD, Fromont G, et al. Laparoscopic radical ergonomics. It has expanded the field of minimally invasive prostatectomy: oncological evaluation after 1000 cases at surgery. Montsouris Institute. J Urol 2003; 169: 1261-1266. 15. Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody JO, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, The issues of cost of equipment and surgery are major Bhandari A, et al. Vattikuti Institute Prostatectomy: hindrances to the widespread use of this technology. It is Technique. J Urol 2003; 169: 2289. difficult to expect a robotic revolution if the costs remain 16. Steinberg JR, Matin SF. Laparoscopic radical nephro- what they are today. However, expansion of indications and ureterectomy: dilemma of the distal ureter. Curr Opin Urol increasing use will help lowering of equipment costs as 2004; 14: 61-65. more machines are sold. 17. Klingler HC, Remzi M, Janetschek G, Kratzik C, Marberger MJ. Comparison of open versus laparoscopic REFERENCES pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol 2003; 44: 340-345. 1. Malone, Robert. “Robot”. Collier’s. 1996 ed. 115. 18. Sung GT, Gill IS, Hsu TH. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic 2. Paul HA, Bargar WL, Mittelstadt B. Development of a pyeloplasty: a pilot study. Urology 1999; 53: 1099-1103. surgical robot for cementless total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 1992; 285: 57. 19. Horgan S, Vanuno D. Robots in laparoscopic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 2001; 11: 415-419. 3. Hill J, Green P, Jensen J. Telepresence surgery demonstration system. Proc IEEE Int Conf Robotics 20. Beninca G, Garrone C, Rebecchi F, Giaccone C, Morino Automation, San Diego 1994; 3, 2302. M. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Preliminary results at our Centre. Chir Ital 2003; 55: 321-331. 4. Bentas W, Wolfram M, Brautigam R, Probst M, Beecken WD, Jonas D, et al. Vinci robot assisted Anderson-Hynes 21. Brunaud L, Bresler L, Ayav A, Tretou S, Cormier L, Klein dismembered pyeloplasty: Technique and 1 year follow- M, et al. Advantages of using robotic Da Vinci system for up. World J Urol 2003; 21: 133-138. unilateral adrenalectomy: early Results. Ann Chir 2003; 128: 530-535. 5. Gettman MT, Peschel R, Neururer R, Bartsch G. A comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed with 22. The initial report by Menon M, Hemal AK, Tewari A, the daVinci robotic system versus standard laparoscopic Shrivastava A, Shoma AM, El-Tabey NA, et al. Nerve- techniques: Initial clinical results. Eur Urol 2002;42: sparing robot-assisted radical and 453-457. urinary diversion. BJU Int 2003; 92: 232-236 described the technique of robotic cystectomy. 6. Hubert J, Feuillu B, Mangin P, Lobontiu A, Artis M, Villemot JP. Laparoscopic computer-assisted pyeloplasty: 23. Hoznek A, Hubert J, Antiphon P, Gettman MT, Hemal AK, the results of experimental surgery in pigs. BJU Int 2003; Abbou CC. Robotic renal surgery. Urol Clin North Am 92: 437-440. 2004; 31: 731-736.

369 Apollo Medicine, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 2006 Review Article

24. Hoznek A, Zaki SK, Samadi DB, Salomon L, Lobontiu A, 27. Olsen LH, Deding D, Yeung CK, Jorgensen TM. Lang P, et al. Robotic assisted kidney transplantation: an Computer assisted laparoscopic pneumovesical ureter initial experience. J Urol 2002; 167: 1604-1606. re-implantation a.m. Cohen: Initial experience in a pig model. APMIS Suppl. 2003: 23-25. 25. Schiff J, Li PS, Goldstein M. Robotic microsurgical vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy: A pros- 28. Chinzei K, Hata N, Jolesz FA, Kikinis R. MR Compatible pective randomized study in a rat model. J Urol 2004; surgical assist robot: system integration and preliminary 171: 1720-1725. feasibility study, Proc. Third International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer assisted 26. Peters CA. Robotically assisted surgery in pediatric Interventions, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, October 11-14, 2000; urology. Urol Clin North Am 2004; 31: 743-752. 921-930.

Apollo Medicine, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 2006 370