University of Central Florida Undergraduate Research Journal - A Practicality Analysis Pertaining to Minimally <br/> Invasive Robot-Assisted Urologic Surgery
US tab

Conclusion

Through this retrospective analysis it is clear that robotic surgery in urology bears many advantages. Whether through hybrid integration or full robotic procedures, there will be uses for robot-assisted surgery in the coming years. With that said, we must be careful not to take a broad view of the subject. There can be no general conclusion to the effectiveness of robot-assisted surgery as a whole, nor can there be a general conclusion to its effectiveness within urology, but rather each procedure must be evaluated individually.

The original assessment tool used in this article specifically shows how the strengths of each technique benefit the field in a different way. By using this tool, practicality can be assessed for each procedure rather than grouping the techniques as a whole. Although the results show that there is a difference in the mean practicality score (Table 4), more examination is needed. Our exploratory research tool should be modified to allow for more distinct comparative evaluations of robotic and laparoscopic techniques. Even then, long-term effects such as durability and oncologic outcomes must be assessed before a final conclusion is reached for each procedure. At this time we can only tentatively recommend the robotic techniques for each of the three procedures. For now, it is safe to conclude that minimally invasive robot-assisted surgery is a practical technique for all three urologic procedures, but must be further examined to determine if it is significantly more practical.

Limitations >>