Technological evolution in urology: assessing laparoscopic and robotic surgery

Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive techniques have revolutionized urological surgery, offering significant benefits over open surgery. This study compares the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and accessibility of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgical techniques in urology.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the current literature of studies comparing outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery in urology. Key performance indicators such as operative time, precision, complication rates, and learning curves were assessed.

Results: Both techniques demonstrate high efficacy, with robotic-assisted surgery offering greater precision and control, particularly in complex procedures. However, the higher costs associated with robotic systems impact their accessibility and adoption, particularly in resource-limited settings. Laparoscopy remains cost-effective and widely accessible, continuing to improve with technological advances in instrumentation and imaging.

Conclusion: Robotic-assisted surgery enhances precision but is limited by high cost. Laparoscopy remains a cost-effective, accessible alternative with evolving capabilities. Ongoing innovations in laparoscopic instruments and techniques is critical to maintaining its competitive edge. Healthcare systems must consider both economic and clinical factors when deciding which technologies to implement, ensuring that the benefits of minimally invasive surgery are available to all patients.

Keywords: Minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopy, robotic-assisted surgery, urology, surgical outcomes