Robotic renal surgery: The future or a passing curiosity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development, advancement and clinical integration of robotictechnology in surgery continue at a staggering pace. In no otherdiscipline has this rapid evolution occurred to a greater degreethan in urology. Although radical prostatectomy has grown tobecome the prototypical application for the robot, the role of therobot in renal surgery remains controversial. Herein we reviewthe literature on robotic renal surgery. A comprehensive PubMedliterature search was performed to identify all published reportsrelating to robotic renal surgery. All clinically related articlesinvolving human participants were critically appraised in thisreview. Fifty-one clinical articles were included, encompassingrobot-assisted pyeloplasty, nephrectomy, nephroureterectomy,living-donor nephrectomy and partial nephrectomy. Feasibilityhas been shown for each of these procedures. Robot-assisted techniqueshave been described for almost all renal-related procedures.However, the intersect between feasibility and necessityas it pertains to robotic renal surgery has yet to be defined. Also,the high cost of surgical robotic technology mandates criticalappraisal before adoption, especially in a publicly funded healthcare system, such as the one present in Canada.Le développement, le perfectionnement et l’intégration en milieuclinique de la technologie robotique en contexte opératoire sepoursuit à un rythme stupéfiant. Aucune autre discipline n’a vucette évolution rapide à un niveau aussi élevé que l’urologie.Alors que la prostatectomie radicale en est devenue l’applicationprototype, le rôle de la robotique en chirurgie rénale demeurecontroversé. Dans l’article qui suit, nous passons en revue lalittérature portant sur l’emploi de la robotique en chirurgie rénale.Une recherche exhaustive dans la base de données PubMed aété effectuée afin de cerner les rapports sur le sujet. Tous les rapportscliniques portant sur des sujets humains ont été évalués.Cinquante et un articles cliniques ont été inclus dans notreanalyse, incluant des cas, tous assistés par robot, de pyéloplastie,de néphrectomie, de néphro-urétérectomie, de néphrectomiechez des donneurs vivants et de néphrectomie partielle. Pour chacunede ces interventions, la faisabilité a été démontrée. Des techniquesassistées par robot ont été décrites pour pratiquement tousles types d’interventions rénales. Néanmoins, le point d’intersectionentre faisabilité et nécessité concernant l’utilisation de larobotique reste à définir. Par ailleurs, le coût élevé de la robotiquechirurgicale justifie une évaluation critique avant l’adoptionde cette technologie, en particulier dans un système de santépublic comme celui du Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".