MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4320729623 · doi:10.1002/bco2.228

The first SURS World Congress of Robotic Surgery at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City: A tribute to the past and the future of robotic urologic surgery

2023· editorial· en· W4320729623 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Raghav Gupta, Deepak Chopra, Ashok K. Hemal, Siddhartha Mukherjee, Craig Rogers, Chandru P. Sundaram, Ashutosh Tewari

Notice bibliographique

RevueBJUI Compass · 2023
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueUreteral procedures and complications
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRobotic surgeryKarelMedicinePaceRoboticsRobotArtificial intelligenceSurgeryComputer scienceHistoryArt historyGeography

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Technological innovation is a microcosm of human curiosity, intellectual prowess, and perseverance in the face of adversity. The past century and a half have been rife with a series of technologic ‘firsts’. From the origins of manned flight in 1903 to the development of the Apollo programme culminating in extraterrestrial travel in 1969, much was achieved during this short period. The pace of innovation in surgery has paralleled that of these other industries. In urology, the advent of robotics has had a profound impact by enabling surgeons to perform procedures with an unprecedented level of precision, enhanced visualization, and decreased invasiveness in comparison to conventional open surgery. Derived from the Czech word ‘robota’, robot refers to a device capable of doing forced work, and was first referenced to by the author Karel Capek in 1920.1 Though industrial robots were introduced in the 1960s (e.g., General Motors & the Unimate robot), it was not until decades later that they began to be utilized in medicine in fields including orthopaedic surgery, neurosurgery and urology.2-4 The PROBOT, developed in 1989 in London, was the first urologic robot used clinically to assist in performing transurethral prostatic resections.5 This was followed by the development of a robot at Johns Hopkins used to obtain percutaneous access during nephrolithotomies.6, 7 Efforts to develop a surgeon-controlled robotic system, however, were spurred on by the US government and the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in collaboration with the Stanford Research Institute. DARPA aimed to create a telepresence surgical system capable of being deployed on a battlefield and controlled from afar.1 In 1995, Frederic Moll and Robert Younge founded Intuitive Surgical (Sunnyvale, California, USA). Intuitive spearheaded the creation of the da Vinci robot, a ‘master–slave’ robotic system that remains widely utilized today and revolutionized the way surgery is performed. In the early 2000s, Dr. Mani Menon and Dr. Ashutosh Tewari at the Vattikuti Urology Institute at Henry Ford Hospital first detailed their technique using the da Vinci to perform minimally invasive nerve-sparing radical prostatectomies.8-13 They demonstrated the advantages of robotic surgery and underscored that it could be feasibly incorporated within the clinical setting, albeit with a short learning curve. This work was seminal and served as a springboard for propelling the field of robotic urology forward.1 The Society of Urologic Robotic Surgeons (SURS) was founded in 2005 in response to a growing body of urologists who had begun to perform robotic-assisted procedures worldwide. No longer limited to prostate surgery, surgeons were performing cystectomies,14-16 nephrectomies,17, 18 adrenalectomies,19 pyeloplasties20, 21 and more, with the assistance of robots. Led by its first president Dr. Raju Thomas, SURS provided a platform for developing a new nomenclature, promoting educational initiatives, disseminating knowledge and creating collaboration amongst robotic urologic surgeons around the globe. Nearly 17 years later, Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City had the privilege of hosting and supporting the first ever SURS World Congress of Robotic Surgery (WCRS) from 8 to 10 December 2022 (Figure 1). In keeping with its roots, the meeting was grounded in a few central tenets1: advancing education of the next generation,2 promoting the development of novel therapies through international collaboration, and3 improving upon established surgical techniques. The WCRS was a 3-day international symposium, inaugurated with an opening holographic (technology: ARHT Media, Toronto, Canada) talk by alternative medicine expert Dr. Deepak Chopra on the influence of mental well-being, physical well-being and the mind–body connection on one's overall health. The meeting incorporated speeches from colleagues in the fields of anaesthesia, radiology, pathology and haematology oncology. Resident- and trainee-led educational sessions occurred hand-in-hand with sessions moderated by seasoned physician assistants providing important pearls and pitfalls for urologists of all ages. A fireside chat with renowned oncologist and writer Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee served as a poignant reminder that the ‘knife’ of tomorrow will look very different from the scalpel of today. He extolled that innovation at the cellular level will ultimately define if we are able to overcome the emperor of all maladies: cancer. Dr. Mani Menon, the father of robotic surgery, presented on his innovative ‘Precision Prostatectomy’ technique. Dr. Tewari showcased his ‘Hood’ technique for robotic prostatectomy during a live 3D surgical session using a novel artificial intelligence platform capable of annotating surgical steps in real time (technology: Theator, Tel-Aviv, Israel). A visionary holographic presentation by Dr. Prokar Dasgupta from London detailed how the power of the human brain could be captured in algorithmic form to guide clinical decision-making. And finally, the meeting concluded with a passing of the torch from the previous presidents of SURS, Dr. Ashutosh Tewari and Dr. Ashok Hemal to the current president, Dr. Craig Rogers. Onward and into the future we march, for it is bright. The authors would like to thank all the participating faculty in the inaugural SURS WCRS meeting who made this event a possibility. Data S1. Supplementary Information Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,645
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,903

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,253
Écart entre enseignants0,230 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBJUI CompassMême sujetUreteral procedures and complicationsTravaux en français237 207