Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Treatment of Prolapse of the Apical Segment of the Vagina

*Kwang Jin Ko and Kyu-Sung Lee*

#### **Abstract**

Abdominal sacrocolpopexy for apical prolapse repair is the gold standard treatment and is more effective and durable than the transvaginal approach. The increase in minimally invasive surgery has led to attempts at laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, but this technique has not gained popularity due to complex procedures and a steep learning curve. Robotic sacrocolpopexy overcomes these issues and has yielded good results for more than 15 years, with equivalent outcomes and safety to open and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC). LSC is still a useful procedure for experienced surgeons, but it is expected that robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RSC) will have better results overall due to the advantages of the robotic instrument. The most important advantage is that surgeons who are inexperienced with minimally invasive approaches can more readily master RSC compared to overcoming the steep learning curve of LSC.

**Keywords:** pelvic organ prolapse, robot, sacrocolpopexy

#### **1. Introduction**

Apical prolapse surgeries can broadly be separated into obliterative and restorative approaches. Restorative approaches can be performed transvaginally or abdominally. For patients desiring a restorative outcome, abdominal sacrocolpopexy remains the gold standard procedure, assuring superior outcomes for a variety of vaginal procedures. Sacrocolpopexy has traditionally been performed through laparotomy; however, attempts to develop minimally invasive approaches have increased to overcome the increased morbidity, longer surgery time, and longer hospital stay associated with open surgery. According to reports to date, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) has the advantages of a shorter hospital stay and decreased blood loss, but no benefit has been confirmed regarding surgery time, and its relatively longer learning curve has been seen as a limitation. To overcome these problems, robotic procedures began to be applied to sacrocolpopexy. After Di Marco et al. published the first study with five patients who underwent robotassisted sacrocolpopexy (RSC) in 2004 [1], many cases have been reported, and good outcomes of RSC have been reported in apical prolapse repair. The main advantages of RSC are the three-dimensional view afforded by use of a robotic instrument, increased degrees of freedom in movement, elaborate sutures, and easy knot tying. Through the advantages of robotic surgery, LSC's technical limitations

and steep learning curve can be overcome. This chapter summarizes the case results, surgical methods, and latest trends of RSC.

#### **2. Efficacy**

Although open sacrocolpopexy is a good treatment option for apical prolapse repair, with long-term success rates of 78–100%, it is associated with increased length of hospital stay, analgesic requirements, and cost compared with transvaginal procedures [2, 3]. To overcome these limitations, new surgical techniques, such as LSC or RSC, have been developed. Compared with open sacrocolpopexy, LSC and RSC decrease overall morbidity and have good anatomical durability [4–10]. Although LSC overcomes many of the shortcomings of open sacrocolpopexy, it is more technically challenging for those not proficient in laparoscopy. Since 2004, implementation of RLC has provided surgeons the dexterity and precision of LSC without the learning curve needed for laparoscopic skills. One of the largest prospective studies (n = 120) of RSC had an anatomical success rate of 89% over a 12-month follow-up [11]. According to a recent systematic review of LSC vs. RSC, RSC is associated with longer surgery time, increased postoperative pain, and higher cost than LSC; however, the surgical options showed similar results in terms of improvement in symptoms [12].

According to the first systematic review of RSC in 2014, the cure rate for apical prolapse was 97–100%, and the overall objective cure rate (all compartments) was 84–100% [13]. In another systematic review, the anatomic cure rate was 98.6% with a mean follow-up of 26.9 months [14]. Relapse occurred in 6.4% of the patients, with anterior, apical, and posterior recurrent prolapse rates of 3.4, 0.4, and 2.6%, respectively. The reoperation rate was 3.3%, with 0.4% caused by apical recurrent prolapse and 2.9% caused by nonapical recurrent prolapse [13]. According to a recent prospective observational study of 144 patients who received RSC and follow-up observation for at least 1 year; the cure rate of apical prolapse after 12 months was 91%; the overall cure rate was 67%; and the recurrence rates of anterior, apical, and posterior prolapse were 15.7, 0.7, and 4.3%, respectively [15]. **Table 1** reports the perioperative outcomes and cure rates.

Recently, interest has increased regarding the subjective cure rate as well as the objective anatomical cure rate, and the results of subjective evaluations are increasingly reported. Evaluation of a subjective cure, though not meeting the strict standards for anatomic success determined using POP-Q stages, emphasizes the improvement in patient's overall symptoms after the surgery and their satisfaction with the outcome. The parameters evaluated are heterogeneous but often include pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI), pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ-7), pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual function questionnaire (PISQ-12), urogenital distress inventory (UDI-6), and global quality of life (QOL). Therefore, though it is necessary to note how the results are analyzed, the subjective cure rate is approximately 95% with RSC, and the satisfaction rate is high at 90–100% [13, 15, 16].

#### **3. Safety and complications**

According to two meta-analyses, estimated blood loss with RSC is 50–82.5 ml, and length of hospital stay is 2–2.4 days. Median surgery time is 194 min, with a wide range from 75 to 536 min, depending on the study. Hysterectomy was conducted in 33% of the patients included in the meta-analyses, and anti-incontinence

**115**

**Study** Anger Barbogilo

Belsante

Benson Culligan Elliott, D

Kramer Louis-Sylvestre Salamon

Seror Siddiqui Tan-Kim

Xylinas Parasio

2011

RCT

40

NR

88

NR

1.8

9

257

43

5

(191–381)

2010

RS

12

19.1

100

60

3.4

0

144

0

0

2011

RS

43

6

90

86

1

0

281

NR

5

2012

RS

125

18.3

94

90

NR

0

NR

19

2.4

2012

PS

20

15

98.5

55

5.1

5

125

30

0

2013

PS

120

12

89

49

1

0

161

1

0

2013

RS

90

15.6

93

NR

3.5

0

246 (180–415)

2009

RS

21

25.2

93

<50

1.1

0

194

NR

9

0

NR

2006

RS

31

24

95

NR

1.03

3

186

23

6

(129–285)

2014

PS

143

12

84

51.2

1

0

148

NR

0

(75–250)

2010

RS

33

32

97

71

1.1

0

227 (137–346)

6

0

2013

RS

35

28

91

71

1.7

0

288 (210–390)

2014

RS

127

12

92

127.7

2

0

124.2

10 14

3

2014

RCT

40

6

NR

85.1

NR

0

294 (180–648)

15

0

**Year**

**Study design**

**Robot cases**

**Mean or median follow-up (month)**

**Objective cure rate (%)**

**Mean or median estimated blood loss (ml)**

**Mean or median hospital stay (day)**

**Conversion rate (%)**

**Mean or median (range) op time (min)**

**Overall complication rate (%)**

**Mesh extrusion (%)**

*Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Treatment of Prolapse of the Apical Segment of the Vagina*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89641*

2.4


#### *Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Treatment of Prolapse of the Apical Segment of the Vagina DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89641*

*Medical Robotics - New Achievements*

of improvement in symptoms [12].

high at 90–100% [13, 15, 16].

**3. Safety and complications**

**Table 1** reports the perioperative outcomes and cure rates.

**2. Efficacy**

results, surgical methods, and latest trends of RSC.

and steep learning curve can be overcome. This chapter summarizes the case

Although open sacrocolpopexy is a good treatment option for apical prolapse repair, with long-term success rates of 78–100%, it is associated with increased length of hospital stay, analgesic requirements, and cost compared with transvaginal procedures [2, 3]. To overcome these limitations, new surgical techniques, such as LSC or RSC, have been developed. Compared with open sacrocolpopexy, LSC and RSC decrease overall morbidity and have good anatomical durability [4–10]. Although LSC overcomes many of the shortcomings of open sacrocolpopexy, it is more technically challenging for those not proficient in laparoscopy. Since 2004, implementation of RLC has provided surgeons the dexterity and precision of LSC without the learning curve needed for laparoscopic skills. One of the largest prospective studies (n = 120) of RSC had an anatomical success rate of 89% over a 12-month follow-up [11]. According to a recent systematic review of LSC vs. RSC, RSC is associated with longer surgery time, increased postoperative pain, and higher cost than LSC; however, the surgical options showed similar results in terms

According to the first systematic review of RSC in 2014, the cure rate for apical prolapse was 97–100%, and the overall objective cure rate (all compartments) was 84–100% [13]. In another systematic review, the anatomic cure rate was 98.6% with a mean follow-up of 26.9 months [14]. Relapse occurred in 6.4% of the patients, with anterior, apical, and posterior recurrent prolapse rates of 3.4, 0.4, and 2.6%, respectively. The reoperation rate was 3.3%, with 0.4% caused by apical recurrent prolapse and 2.9% caused by nonapical recurrent prolapse [13]. According to a recent prospective observational study of 144 patients who received RSC and follow-up observation for at least 1 year; the cure rate of apical prolapse after 12 months was 91%; the overall cure rate was 67%; and the recurrence rates of anterior, apical, and posterior prolapse were 15.7, 0.7, and 4.3%, respectively [15].

Recently, interest has increased regarding the subjective cure rate as well as the objective anatomical cure rate, and the results of subjective evaluations are increasingly reported. Evaluation of a subjective cure, though not meeting the strict standards for anatomic success determined using POP-Q stages, emphasizes the improvement in patient's overall symptoms after the surgery and their satisfaction with the outcome. The parameters evaluated are heterogeneous but often include pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI), pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ-7), pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual function questionnaire (PISQ-12), urogenital distress inventory (UDI-6), and global quality of life (QOL). Therefore, though it is necessary to note how the results are analyzed, the subjective cure rate is approximately 95% with RSC, and the satisfaction rate is

According to two meta-analyses, estimated blood loss with RSC is 50–82.5 ml, and length of hospital stay is 2–2.4 days. Median surgery time is 194 min, with a wide range from 75 to 536 min, depending on the study. Hysterectomy was conducted in 33% of the patients included in the meta-analyses, and anti-incontinence

**114**


 **1.** *Summary of efficacy, perioperative outcomes, and complications in robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (PS, prospective study; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RS, retrospective study).*

**117**

*Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Treatment of Prolapse of the Apical Segment of the Vagina*

surgery was conducted simultaneously in 38% of patients. Therefore, it is likely that concomitant surgical procedures (including total hysterectomy, anti-incontinence procedures, and other transvaginal prolapse surgeries) contribute to the heteroge-

In the analyses above, diverse complications were reported. The overall conversion rate to open surgery was 0–8.6%, and the overall postoperative complication rate was approximately 10%. Using the Clavien-Dindo classifications for complications, 7% were Grade 1–2, <1% were Grade 3a, 2% were Grade 3b, and no Grade 4–5 complications were reported. The mesh erosion rate was 0–8% [13, 14]. Recently, a prospective, long-term study of mesh erosion after implementation of the RSC was published. Of the 69 patients analyzed, three experienced mesh erosion (3.1%) during a median 48.1 months of follow-up. Subsequent Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated an erosion rate of 5.3% in 5 years of RSC. Through additional literature analysis, the authors found that the reported erosion rate varied from 0 to 13.3% but was less than 5% in 83% of the studies, and the overall erosion rate was approximately 1.9%. Due to mesh-related complications, its use has been limited recently; however, the risk associated with transabdominally placed synthetic mesh is extremely low, and the mesh-related risk does not increase with RSC. **Table 1** lists

The patient is placed in the lithotomy position with the Trendelenburg position to displace the bowel loops upward, providing more working space. The ports are placed in a W-shaped configuration. Generally, attached to three robot arms are one camera port and a fenestrated Grasper (Pro Grasp), robotic scissors (Hot ShearsTM), and one large needle driver; another port is used if necessary.

The peritoneal cavity is assessed after robot docking. Because of the history of hysterectomy in vault prolapse patients, they may experience bowel adhesion, which must be addressed first. The mesh should be fixed to the anterior and posterior walls of the vagina; therefore, during vaginal dissection, it is important to properly detach the space between the bladder attachment to the anterior and the rectum attachment to the posterior (**Figure 1**). It is difficult to clearly distinguish the space between the cervix and bladder in patients with previous hysterectomy. Transvaginal use of a vagina manipulator aids in evaluating the anatomical structure of the surroundings. Retrograde bladder filling using a Foley catheter placed before surgery may be helpful in dissection by delineating the bladder margin. Since the plane between the anterior vaginal wall and the bladder is relatively avascular, if there is bleeding during dissection, it is typically because the wrong plane is being

There are no clear guidelines concerning the extent to which anterior dissection should proceed. In a systematic review of 21 randomized controlled trials, depth of vaginal dissection was a commonly described determination in the procedure that, however, involved significant heterogeneity [17]. In a survey conducted among the members of International Urogynecological Association and the American Urogynecological Society, 18% responded that they dissect only in the apex of the vagina, 56% to the mid-level of the vagina, and 25% to the level of the trigone. The

dissected, specifically the detrusor muscle or the vaginal muscularis.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89641*

neity of surgery time [13, 14].

the complications.

**4. Surgical procedures**

**4.2 Vaginal dissection**

**4.1 Patient positioning and port placement**

*Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Treatment of Prolapse of the Apical Segment of the Vagina DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89641*

surgery was conducted simultaneously in 38% of patients. Therefore, it is likely that concomitant surgical procedures (including total hysterectomy, anti-incontinence procedures, and other transvaginal prolapse surgeries) contribute to the heterogeneity of surgery time [13, 14].

In the analyses above, diverse complications were reported. The overall conversion rate to open surgery was 0–8.6%, and the overall postoperative complication rate was approximately 10%. Using the Clavien-Dindo classifications for complications, 7% were Grade 1–2, <1% were Grade 3a, 2% were Grade 3b, and no Grade 4–5 complications were reported. The mesh erosion rate was 0–8% [13, 14]. Recently, a prospective, long-term study of mesh erosion after implementation of the RSC was published. Of the 69 patients analyzed, three experienced mesh erosion (3.1%) during a median 48.1 months of follow-up. Subsequent Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated an erosion rate of 5.3% in 5 years of RSC. Through additional literature analysis, the authors found that the reported erosion rate varied from 0 to 13.3% but was less than 5% in 83% of the studies, and the overall erosion rate was approximately 1.9%. Due to mesh-related complications, its use has been limited recently; however, the risk associated with transabdominally placed synthetic mesh is extremely low, and the mesh-related risk does not increase with RSC. **Table 1** lists the complications.

#### **4. Surgical procedures**

*Medical Robotics - New Achievements*

**116**

**Study**

Jong Zanten

**Table 1.**

2019

PS

188

12

91

25 *Summary of efficacy, perioperative outcomes, and complications in robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (PS, prospective study; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RS, retrospective study).*

1.0

4.3

145.3

5.3

2.1

2018

RS

56

64

93

56

2.7

NR

234

NR

3

**Year**

**Study** 

**Robot** 

**Mean or** 

**Objective** 

**Mean or** 

**Mean or** 

**Conversion** 

**Mean or** 

**Overall** 

**Mesh** 

**extrusion** 

**(%)**

**complication** 

**rate (%)**

**median** 

**(range) op** 

**time (min)**

**rate (%)**

**median** 

**hospital** 

**stay (day)**

**median** 

**estimated** 

**blood loss** 

**(ml)**

**cure rate** 

**(%)**

**median** 

**follow-up** 

**(month)**

**design**

**cases**

#### **4.1 Patient positioning and port placement**

The patient is placed in the lithotomy position with the Trendelenburg position to displace the bowel loops upward, providing more working space. The ports are placed in a W-shaped configuration. Generally, attached to three robot arms are one camera port and a fenestrated Grasper (Pro Grasp), robotic scissors (Hot ShearsTM), and one large needle driver; another port is used if necessary.

#### **4.2 Vaginal dissection**

The peritoneal cavity is assessed after robot docking. Because of the history of hysterectomy in vault prolapse patients, they may experience bowel adhesion, which must be addressed first. The mesh should be fixed to the anterior and posterior walls of the vagina; therefore, during vaginal dissection, it is important to properly detach the space between the bladder attachment to the anterior and the rectum attachment to the posterior (**Figure 1**). It is difficult to clearly distinguish the space between the cervix and bladder in patients with previous hysterectomy. Transvaginal use of a vagina manipulator aids in evaluating the anatomical structure of the surroundings. Retrograde bladder filling using a Foley catheter placed before surgery may be helpful in dissection by delineating the bladder margin. Since the plane between the anterior vaginal wall and the bladder is relatively avascular, if there is bleeding during dissection, it is typically because the wrong plane is being dissected, specifically the detrusor muscle or the vaginal muscularis.

There are no clear guidelines concerning the extent to which anterior dissection should proceed. In a systematic review of 21 randomized controlled trials, depth of vaginal dissection was a commonly described determination in the procedure that, however, involved significant heterogeneity [17]. In a survey conducted among the members of International Urogynecological Association and the American Urogynecological Society, 18% responded that they dissect only in the apex of the vagina, 56% to the mid-level of the vagina, and 25% to the level of the trigone. The

**Figure 1.** *Vaginal wall dissection.*

generally accepted rule is to approach as close as possible to prevent recurrence but to not dissect deep to the trigone. Recently, preliminary data have been published measuring the bladder neck-mesh distance (BMD) using transvaginal ultrasound at the end of promontofixation. The BMD inversely correlated with the changes in C (*p* = 0.01) and Bp (*p* = 0.04) before and after surgery and with the complication rate (*p* = 0.01) but not with the difference in Ba. A BMD greater than 6 mm predicted the absence of postoperative *de novo* symptoms, and a short BMD predicted postoperative *de novo* symptoms such as urinary stress incontinence [18]. This indicates that BMD predicts the need for apical repair. It is necessary to conduct a well-organized study of surgical outcomes based on depth of anterior vaginal wall dissection; however, the authors judge that it is empirically sufficient to detach the anterior and posterior vaginal wall to the extent that the mesh arm is fixed (approximately the upper third of the vagina). If it is necessary to fix the mesh to the posterior vaginal wall as well, the vaginal wall should be carefully mobilized and dissected from the rectum followed by attempting to approach the recto-vagina space.

#### **4.3 Presacral dissection**

Presacral dissection is performed after dissection of the vaginal wall. The proximal arm of the mesh is fixed at the sacral promontory. The recommended sacral fixation point has changed due to concerns regarding hemorrhage and maintenance of the most natural vaginal axis. In the early 1970s, fixation of the mesh was typically at the level of S3/S4, but this was associated with a marked risk for hemorrhage. In 1981, Sutton et al. described fixation at the S1/S2 level for better visualization of the middle sacral artery and less risk of bleeding. Currently, the consensus is to affix the sacral arm of the mesh to the most superior point of the anterior surface of S1. However, even though attachment to the S1 region can decrease the risk of bleeding compared to other levels, it is necessary to use caution in dissection since the promontory can be anatomically unfamiliar, and there is a risk of bleeding due to the close proximity of the nerve to the surrounding blood vessels. Most of all, it is clearly necessary to be well informed regarding the anatomic relationships of the sacral promontory to other structures.

The first step in presacral dissection is retraction of the sigmoid colon to expose the peritoneum that covers the promontory. If it is difficult to expose the promontory due to surrounding bowel adhesion, adhesiolysis is performed. An important anatomical feature to aid in finding the promontory is the pulsating right common iliac artery (**Figure 2**). Starting from this point, the peritoneum in the most prominent region of the endoscopic view is opened first. It may be difficult for

**119**

**Figure 2.**

*Anatomy of sacral promontory (left) and presacral dissection (right).*

*Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Treatment of Prolapse of the Apical Segment of the Vagina*

inexperienced practitioners to find the exact position when the peritoneum is covered. In patients with thick presacral fat pads, it is especially difficult to identify the surrounding structures. In these cases, the right ureter may be a useful landmark as it is found approximately 30 mm lateral to the sacral promontory. Therefore, measuring 30 mm medial to the right ureter along the pelvic brim should allow the surgeon to identify the most likely location of the sacral promontory [19]. The peritoneum is then dissected, and the incision is typically extended to the cul-desac region to make space to cover the mesh. However, we prefer to make space by tunneling into the region of vaginal dissection instead of using a long incision in the posterior peritoneum. This is because tunneling can lessen the inconvenience of

In an effort to decrease the morbidity associated with open sacrocolpopexy, RSC has rapidly gained popularity because it decreases the difficulty with laparoscopic knot tying and aids in sacral dissection due to three-dimensional visualization. However, variables in surgical technique include amount of vaginal dissection, type of mesh, number or location of sutures that should be placed to secure the suspend-

The chemical makeup of the synthetic material used in the mesh does not affect the success of the procedure. However, pore size is important in the ability of the host to eliminate bacteria. Macrophages and leukocytes can enter macroporous mesh and prevent infection. Fiber composition is interconnected with pore size; in multifilament mesh material, there are microporous interstices between the filaments. Thus, Type 1 mesh (i.e., macroporous and monofilament) should be used. We use pre-fashioned Y-shaped DynaMesh®-PRS, which is a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) monofilament material. The use of pre-fashioned Y-shaped mesh compared to a self-fashioned mesh does not have a major impact on the success rate of the surgery [20]. The mesh is fixed to the anterior and posterior vaginal wall with multiple sutures to distribute tension on the vagina (**Figure 3**). The choice of suture material, suture gauge, and number of sutures may vary highly depending on surgical approach [17]. The traditional open sacrocolpopexy uses a nonabsorbable suture to prevent detaching the mesh from the vagina and sacral promontory and decreasing the risk of mesh exposure and suture erosion. In a study of RSC with a median follow-up of 33 months, the use of absorbable sutures for both vaginal and sacral mesh attachment was effective, and the 3-year rate of survival without repeat prolapse surgery was 93%. However, there was no benefit of the risk of

ing mesh, retroperitonealization of the mesh, and cervix preservation.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89641*

subsequent closure of the peritoneum.

**4.4 Mesh and fixation**

*Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Treatment of Prolapse of the Apical Segment of the Vagina DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89641*

inexperienced practitioners to find the exact position when the peritoneum is covered. In patients with thick presacral fat pads, it is especially difficult to identify the surrounding structures. In these cases, the right ureter may be a useful landmark as it is found approximately 30 mm lateral to the sacral promontory. Therefore, measuring 30 mm medial to the right ureter along the pelvic brim should allow the surgeon to identify the most likely location of the sacral promontory [19]. The peritoneum is then dissected, and the incision is typically extended to the cul-desac region to make space to cover the mesh. However, we prefer to make space by tunneling into the region of vaginal dissection instead of using a long incision in the posterior peritoneum. This is because tunneling can lessen the inconvenience of subsequent closure of the peritoneum.

#### **4.4 Mesh and fixation**

*Medical Robotics - New Achievements*

generally accepted rule is to approach as close as possible to prevent recurrence but to not dissect deep to the trigone. Recently, preliminary data have been published measuring the bladder neck-mesh distance (BMD) using transvaginal ultrasound at the end of promontofixation. The BMD inversely correlated with the changes in C (*p* = 0.01) and Bp (*p* = 0.04) before and after surgery and with the complication rate (*p* = 0.01) but not with the difference in Ba. A BMD greater than 6 mm predicted the absence of postoperative *de novo* symptoms, and a short BMD predicted postoperative *de novo* symptoms such as urinary stress incontinence [18]. This indicates that BMD predicts the need for apical repair. It is necessary to conduct a well-organized study of surgical outcomes based on depth of anterior vaginal wall dissection; however, the authors judge that it is empirically sufficient to detach the anterior and posterior vaginal wall to the extent that the mesh arm is fixed (approximately the upper third of the vagina). If it is necessary to fix the mesh to the posterior vaginal wall as well, the vaginal wall should be carefully mobilized and dissected from the

Presacral dissection is performed after dissection of the vaginal wall. The proximal arm of the mesh is fixed at the sacral promontory. The recommended sacral fixation point has changed due to concerns regarding hemorrhage and maintenance of the most natural vaginal axis. In the early 1970s, fixation of the mesh was typically at the level of S3/S4, but this was associated with a marked risk for hemorrhage. In 1981, Sutton et al. described fixation at the S1/S2 level for better visualization of the middle sacral artery and less risk of bleeding. Currently, the consensus is to affix the sacral arm of the mesh to the most superior point of the anterior surface of S1. However, even though attachment to the S1 region can decrease the risk of bleeding compared to other levels, it is necessary to use caution in dissection since the promontory can be anatomically unfamiliar, and there is a risk of bleeding due to the close proximity of the nerve to the surrounding blood vessels. Most of all, it is clearly necessary to be well informed regarding the anatomic relationships of the

The first step in presacral dissection is retraction of the sigmoid colon to expose the peritoneum that covers the promontory. If it is difficult to expose the promontory due to surrounding bowel adhesion, adhesiolysis is performed. An important anatomical feature to aid in finding the promontory is the pulsating right common iliac artery (**Figure 2**). Starting from this point, the peritoneum in the most prominent region of the endoscopic view is opened first. It may be difficult for

rectum followed by attempting to approach the recto-vagina space.

**4.3 Presacral dissection**

**Figure 1.**

*Vaginal wall dissection.*

sacral promontory to other structures.

**118**

In an effort to decrease the morbidity associated with open sacrocolpopexy, RSC has rapidly gained popularity because it decreases the difficulty with laparoscopic knot tying and aids in sacral dissection due to three-dimensional visualization. However, variables in surgical technique include amount of vaginal dissection, type of mesh, number or location of sutures that should be placed to secure the suspending mesh, retroperitonealization of the mesh, and cervix preservation.

The chemical makeup of the synthetic material used in the mesh does not affect the success of the procedure. However, pore size is important in the ability of the host to eliminate bacteria. Macrophages and leukocytes can enter macroporous mesh and prevent infection. Fiber composition is interconnected with pore size; in multifilament mesh material, there are microporous interstices between the filaments. Thus, Type 1 mesh (i.e., macroporous and monofilament) should be used. We use pre-fashioned Y-shaped DynaMesh®-PRS, which is a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) monofilament material. The use of pre-fashioned Y-shaped mesh compared to a self-fashioned mesh does not have a major impact on the success rate of the surgery [20]. The mesh is fixed to the anterior and posterior vaginal wall with multiple sutures to distribute tension on the vagina (**Figure 3**). The choice of suture material, suture gauge, and number of sutures may vary highly depending on surgical approach [17]. The traditional open sacrocolpopexy uses a nonabsorbable suture to prevent detaching the mesh from the vagina and sacral promontory and decreasing the risk of mesh exposure and suture erosion. In a study of RSC with a median follow-up of 33 months, the use of absorbable sutures for both vaginal and sacral mesh attachment was effective, and the 3-year rate of survival without repeat prolapse surgery was 93%. However, there was no benefit of the risk of

**Figure 2.** *Anatomy of sacral promontory (left) and presacral dissection (right).*

**Figure 3.** *Fix the mesh to the anterior and posterior vaginal wall.*

**Figure 4.** *Fixation of the proximal arm of mesh.*

mesh erosion [21]. Although the evidence is still lacking, it is unlikely that absorbable sutures are a risk factor for mesh detachment. Further studies are needed to determine the proper location, number, and type of suture. Recently, a barbed absorbable suture material has been used in a continuous running suture along the vaginal wall with good results. Tan-Kim et al. [22]conducted a randomized study comparing non-barbed, interrupted sutures to barbed sutures (Quill™) for anchoring mesh to the vaginal wall during RSC. Among the patients, the non-barbed suture group had significantly longer surgery times than the barbed suture group (42 vs. 29 minutes, *p* < 0.001), and there was no significant difference in anatomic failure between the two groups at 12 months postoperation. Another retrospective study reported the outcomes of 20 patients who underwent RSC using barbed, delayed-absorption sutures (3–0 V-Loc 180, Covidien) to fix the mesh to the vaginal wall. There was no recurrence of apical prolapse or mesh exposure during the 1-year follow-up [23].

The proximal arm of the mesh should be fixed in the sacral promontory (**Figure 4**). At this time, the tension of the mesh should be adjusted while the prolapse is restored using the vaginal manipulator. Excessive tension may cause pain or irritative bladder symptoms after surgery. The mesh is sutured to the anterior longitudinal ligament overlying the sacrum with 2–5 sutures. As the endoscopic approach becomes more common, reports of postoperative discitis are gradually increasing. This is primarily caused by penetration of the L5-S1 disc; therefore, surgeons should ensure attachment to the S1 body below the disc. According to a study of spinal magnetic resonance images of subjects in the supine position, the

**121**

*Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Treatment of Prolapse of the Apical Segment of the Vagina*

most prominent point of the promontory was the L5-S1 disc in 73% of cases, and the S1 body was located within 5 mm inferior to the promontory in 100% of the images reviewed [24]. Unless the position of the S1 body can be confirmed, surgeons should take into account the thickness of the anterior longitudinal ligament, which ranges from 1 to 2 mm, and should avoid deep suture bites that may penetrate into the disc. It is optimal to suture the peritoneum after mesh fixation. A few reports have stated that they found no complications even though peritoneal closure was not conducted; however, it is preferable to perform this step to prevent bowel adhesion

The "single-port approach" is a sign of a new era in the field of minimally invasive surgeries with good cosmetic results and reduced patient morbidity

compared with multiport surgery. Though single-port robotic surgery is in the early stage of application, it has been implemented in various surgical fields. Since 2017, a few reports on single-port RSC have been published and are being accepted as feasible techniques [25–28]. In 2017, Matanes et al. [27] reported the first 25 cases of single-port RSC. They demonstrated significant decreases in median total operative and console times (226 minutes for the first 15 cases vs. 156 minutes for the next 10 cases), which was in the same range as that reported for the initial experience with multiport access. There were no intraoperative adverse events. One case of small bowel obstruction required reoperation; however, that patient did not receive retroperitonealized mesh. That event altered the surgeon's approach with all subsequent patients, who had mesh covered by the peritoneum. Recently, Liu et al. [26] published another case series of single-port RSC with a modified technique. They used retroperitoneal tunneling techniques and asserted that they could more easily perform a single-port approach as a result. A retroperitoneal tunnel was created by undermining the peritoneum with an articulated needle driver. The needle driver was placed in the peritoneal opening over the sacral promontory, and the tunnel was created just medial to the right uterosacral ligament in the direction of the vaginal vault. The tunnel was created using forward pressure and a sweeping motion to create a space within the retroperitoneum. This allowed easier adjustment and maintenance of mesh tension during placement of sutures in the sacral promontory compared with opening the entire retroperitoneal space and may reduce operative

Despite the limitation that various methods are used by individual surgeons for evaluating the outcomes of pelvic organ prolapse repair and other surgical procedures, the use of RSC in apical prolapse repair has led to good long-term results in terms of efficacy and safety over the last 15 years. LSC is still a useful procedure for experienced surgeons, but it is expected that RSC will have better results overall due to the advantages of the robotic instrument. The most important advantage is that surgeons who are inexperienced with minimally invasive approaches can more readily master RSC compared to overcoming the steep learning curve of LSC.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89641*

or intraabdominal mesh complications.

**4.5 Single-port approach**

time and adhesion formation.

**5. Conclusions**

#### *Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Treatment of Prolapse of the Apical Segment of the Vagina DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89641*

most prominent point of the promontory was the L5-S1 disc in 73% of cases, and the S1 body was located within 5 mm inferior to the promontory in 100% of the images reviewed [24]. Unless the position of the S1 body can be confirmed, surgeons should take into account the thickness of the anterior longitudinal ligament, which ranges from 1 to 2 mm, and should avoid deep suture bites that may penetrate into the disc.

It is optimal to suture the peritoneum after mesh fixation. A few reports have stated that they found no complications even though peritoneal closure was not conducted; however, it is preferable to perform this step to prevent bowel adhesion or intraabdominal mesh complications.

#### **4.5 Single-port approach**

*Medical Robotics - New Achievements*

*Fix the mesh to the anterior and posterior vaginal wall.*

**Figure 3.**

**Figure 4.**

*Fixation of the proximal arm of mesh.*

mesh erosion [21]. Although the evidence is still lacking, it is unlikely that absorbable sutures are a risk factor for mesh detachment. Further studies are needed to determine the proper location, number, and type of suture. Recently, a barbed absorbable suture material has been used in a continuous running suture along the vaginal wall with good results. Tan-Kim et al. [22]conducted a randomized study comparing non-barbed, interrupted sutures to barbed sutures (Quill™) for anchoring mesh to the vaginal wall during RSC. Among the patients, the non-barbed suture group had significantly longer surgery times than the barbed suture group (42 vs. 29 minutes, *p* < 0.001), and there was no significant difference in anatomic failure between the two groups at 12 months postoperation. Another retrospective study reported the outcomes of 20 patients who underwent RSC using barbed, delayed-absorption sutures (3–0 V-Loc 180, Covidien) to fix the mesh to the vaginal wall. There was no recurrence of apical prolapse or mesh exposure during the 1-year

The proximal arm of the mesh should be fixed in the sacral promontory (**Figure 4**). At this time, the tension of the mesh should be adjusted while the prolapse is restored using the vaginal manipulator. Excessive tension may cause pain or irritative bladder symptoms after surgery. The mesh is sutured to the anterior longitudinal ligament overlying the sacrum with 2–5 sutures. As the endoscopic approach becomes more common, reports of postoperative discitis are gradually increasing. This is primarily caused by penetration of the L5-S1 disc; therefore, surgeons should ensure attachment to the S1 body below the disc. According to a study of spinal magnetic resonance images of subjects in the supine position, the

**120**

follow-up [23].

The "single-port approach" is a sign of a new era in the field of minimally invasive surgeries with good cosmetic results and reduced patient morbidity compared with multiport surgery. Though single-port robotic surgery is in the early stage of application, it has been implemented in various surgical fields. Since 2017, a few reports on single-port RSC have been published and are being accepted as feasible techniques [25–28]. In 2017, Matanes et al. [27] reported the first 25 cases of single-port RSC. They demonstrated significant decreases in median total operative and console times (226 minutes for the first 15 cases vs. 156 minutes for the next 10 cases), which was in the same range as that reported for the initial experience with multiport access. There were no intraoperative adverse events. One case of small bowel obstruction required reoperation; however, that patient did not receive retroperitonealized mesh. That event altered the surgeon's approach with all subsequent patients, who had mesh covered by the peritoneum. Recently, Liu et al. [26] published another case series of single-port RSC with a modified technique. They used retroperitoneal tunneling techniques and asserted that they could more easily perform a single-port approach as a result. A retroperitoneal tunnel was created by undermining the peritoneum with an articulated needle driver. The needle driver was placed in the peritoneal opening over the sacral promontory, and the tunnel was created just medial to the right uterosacral ligament in the direction of the vaginal vault. The tunnel was created using forward pressure and a sweeping motion to create a space within the retroperitoneum. This allowed easier adjustment and maintenance of mesh tension during placement of sutures in the sacral promontory compared with opening the entire retroperitoneal space and may reduce operative time and adhesion formation.

#### **5. Conclusions**

Despite the limitation that various methods are used by individual surgeons for evaluating the outcomes of pelvic organ prolapse repair and other surgical procedures, the use of RSC in apical prolapse repair has led to good long-term results in terms of efficacy and safety over the last 15 years. LSC is still a useful procedure for experienced surgeons, but it is expected that RSC will have better results overall due to the advantages of the robotic instrument. The most important advantage is that surgeons who are inexperienced with minimally invasive approaches can more readily master RSC compared to overcoming the steep learning curve of LSC.

*Medical Robotics - New Achievements*

#### **Author details**

Kwang Jin Ko1 and Kyu-Sung Lee2,3\*

1 Department of Urology, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

2 Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

3 Biomedical Engineering Research Center, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea

\*Address all correspondence to: ksleedr@skku.edu

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

**123**

*Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Treatment of Prolapse of the Apical Segment of the Vagina*

et al. Outcomes of abdominal and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: A retrospective cohort study. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive

[9] Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: A randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2011;**118**(5):1005-1013

Visco AG. Symptomatic and anatomic 1-year outcomes after robotic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[11] Salamon CG, Lewis C, Priestley J, Gurshumov E, Culligan PJ. Prospective

[12] Pan K, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Wang Y, Xu H. A systematic review and metaanalysis of conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus robot-assisted

International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics: The Official Organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2016;**132**(3):284-291

[13] Serati M, Bogani G, Sorice P, Braga A, Torella M, Salvatore S, et al. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. European Urology. 2014;**66**(2):303-318

[14] Hudson CO, Northington GM, Lyles RH, Karp DR. Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery.

2014;**20**(5):252-260

Surgery. 2014;**20**(1):33-37

[10] Siddiqui NY, Geller EJ,

2012;**206**(5):435.e1-435.e5

study of an ultra-lightweight polypropylene Y mesh for robotic sacrocolpopexy. International Urogynecology Journal. 2013;**24**(8):1371-1375

laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89641*

**References**

[1] Di Marco DS, Chow GK, Gettman MT, Elliott DS. Roboticassisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse.

Urology. 2004;**63**(2):373-376

2014;**65**(6):1128-1137

[2] Lee RK, Mottrie A, Payne CK, Waltregny D. A review of the current status of laparoscopic and robotassisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. European Urology.

[3] Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly A, Cundiff G, Weber AM, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: A comprehensive review. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2004;**104**(4):805-823

[4] Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman A, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: A randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2014;**123**(1):5-12

Lazzeri M, Bini V, Nunzi E, di Biase M, et al. Laparoscopic versus abdominal Sacrocolpopexy: A randomized,

controlled trial. The Journal of Urology.

[5] Costantini E, Mearini L,

[6] Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A, Frappell J, Bombieri L, Moran P, et al. A randomised controlled

[7] Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG. Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2008;**112**(6):1201-1206

[8] Nosti PA, Umoh Andy U, Kane S, White DE, Harvie HS, Lowenstein L,

trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. International Urogynecology Journal.

2013;**24**(3):377-384

2016;**196**(1):159-165

*Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Treatment of Prolapse of the Apical Segment of the Vagina DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89641*

#### **References**

*Medical Robotics - New Achievements*

**122**

**Author details**

Republic of Korea

and Kyu-Sung Lee2,3\*

College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

\*Address all correspondence to: ksleedr@skku.edu

provided the original work is properly cited.

1 Department of Urology, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University

2 Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University

3 Biomedical Engineering Research Center, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul,

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

Kwang Jin Ko1

[1] Di Marco DS, Chow GK, Gettman MT, Elliott DS. Roboticassisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Urology. 2004;**63**(2):373-376

[2] Lee RK, Mottrie A, Payne CK, Waltregny D. A review of the current status of laparoscopic and robotassisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. European Urology. 2014;**65**(6):1128-1137

[3] Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly A, Cundiff G, Weber AM, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: A comprehensive review. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2004;**104**(4):805-823

[4] Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman A, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: A randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2014;**123**(1):5-12

[5] Costantini E, Mearini L, Lazzeri M, Bini V, Nunzi E, di Biase M, et al. Laparoscopic versus abdominal Sacrocolpopexy: A randomized, controlled trial. The Journal of Urology. 2016;**196**(1):159-165

[6] Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A, Frappell J, Bombieri L, Moran P, et al. A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. International Urogynecology Journal. 2013;**24**(3):377-384

[7] Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG. Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2008;**112**(6):1201-1206

[8] Nosti PA, Umoh Andy U, Kane S, White DE, Harvie HS, Lowenstein L, et al. Outcomes of abdominal and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: A retrospective cohort study. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery. 2014;**20**(1):33-37

[9] Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: A randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2011;**118**(5):1005-1013

[10] Siddiqui NY, Geller EJ, Visco AG. Symptomatic and anatomic 1-year outcomes after robotic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2012;**206**(5):435.e1-435.e5

[11] Salamon CG, Lewis C, Priestley J, Gurshumov E, Culligan PJ. Prospective study of an ultra-lightweight polypropylene Y mesh for robotic sacrocolpopexy. International Urogynecology Journal. 2013;**24**(8):1371-1375

[12] Pan K, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Wang Y, Xu H. A systematic review and metaanalysis of conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics: The Official Organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2016;**132**(3):284-291

[13] Serati M, Bogani G, Sorice P, Braga A, Torella M, Salvatore S, et al. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. European Urology. 2014;**66**(2):303-318

[14] Hudson CO, Northington GM, Lyles RH, Karp DR. Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery. 2014;**20**(5):252-260

[15] van Zanten F, Schraffordt Koops SE, O'Sullivan OE, Lenters E, Broeders I, O'Reilly BA. Robot-assisted surgery for the management of apical prolapse: A bi-Centre prospective cohort study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2019;**126**(8):1065-1073

[16] Jong K, Klein T, Zimmern PE. Longterm outcomes of robotic mesh sacrocolpopexy. Journal of Robotic Surgery. 2018;**12**(3):455-460

[17] Moroni RM, Juliato CRT, Cosson M, Giraudet G, Brito LGO. Does sacrocolpopexy present heterogeneity in its surgical technique? A systematic review. Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2018;**37**(8):2335-2345

[18] Habib N, Centini G, Pizzoferrato AC, Bui C, Argay I, Bader G. Laparoscopic promontofixation: Where to stop the anterior dissection? Medical Hypotheses. 2019;**124**:60-63

[19] McCullough M, Valceus J, Downes K, Hoyte L. The ureter as a landmark for robotic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery. 2012;**18**(3):162-164

[20] Ferrando CA, Paraiso MFR. A prospective randomized trial comparing Restorelle Y mesh and flat mesh for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery. 2019;**25**(2):83-87

[21] Linder BJ, Anand M, Klingele CJ, Trabuco EC, Gebhart JB, Occhino JA. Outcomes of robotic Sacrocolpopexy using only absorbable suture for mesh fixation. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery. 2017;**23**(1):13-16

[22] Tan-Kim J, Nager CW, Grimes CL, Luber KM, Lukacz ES, Brown HW, et al. A randomized trial of vaginal mesh attachment techniques for

minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. International Urogynecology Journal. 2015;**26**(5):649-656

[23] Borahay MA, Oge T, Walsh TM, Patel PR, Rodriguez AM, Kilic GS. Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy using barbed delayed absorbable sutures. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2014;**21**(3):412-416

[24] Abernethy M, Vasquez E, Kenton K, Brubaker L, Mueller E. Where do we place the sacrocolpopexy stitch? A magnetic resonance imaging investigation. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery. 2013;**19**(1):31-33

[25] Guan X, Ma Y, Gisseman J, Kleithermes C, Liu J. Robotic single-site Sacrocolpopexy using barbed suture anchoring and peritoneal tunneling technique: Tips and tricks. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2017;**24**(1):12-13

[26] Liu J, Bardawil E, Zurawin RK, Wu J, Fu H, Orejuela F, et al. Robotic single-site Sacrocolpopexy with retroperitoneal tunneling. JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. 2018;**22**(3):e2018.00009

[27] Matanes E, Lauterbach R, Mustafa-Mikhail S, Amit A, Wiener Z, Lowenstein L. Single port robotic assisted Sacrocolpopexy: Our experience with the first 25 cases. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery. 2017;**23**(3):e14-ee8

[28] Lowenstein L, Matanes E, Burke YZ. Surgical technique for robotassisted Sacrocolpopexy performed via a single port. Urology. 2017;**103**:272

**125**

**Chapter 9**

**Abstract**

Robot-Assisted Kidney

*Karel Decaestecker, Angelo Territo, Riccardo Campi,* 

*Benjamin Van Parys, Giulio Bevilacqua, Liesbeth Desender* 

Robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) has recently been introduced to reduce the morbidity of open kidney transplantation (KT). Robot-assisted surgery has been able to overcome many of the limitations of classical laparoscopy, certainly in complex and technically demanding procedures, such as vascular and ureteral anastomosis. Since the first RAKT in 2010, this technique has been standardized and evaluated in highly experienced robot and KT centers around the world. In Europe, the European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) created an RAKT working group in 2016 in order to prospectively follow the outcomes of RAKT. When performed by surgeons with both robotic and KT experience, RAKT has been proven to be safe and reproducible in selected cases and yield excellent graft function with a low complication rate. Multiple institutions have now adopted RAKT, and its use will likely increase in the near future. However, structured training and proctoring will be mandatory for those embarking on RAKT in order to help them negotiate the learning curve and avoid technical mistakes. This chapter will describe RAKT from living and deceased donors and its application in

Transplantation

*and Alberto Breda*

kidney autotransplantation (KAT).

**1. Introduction**

complication rate.

autotransplantation, robot-assisted, robotic

**Keywords:** kidney transplantation, living donor, deceased donor,

autotransplantation, robot-assisted kidney transplantation, robot-assisted kidney

Kidney transplantation (KT) is considered the preferred treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) owing to the greater survival rate and better quality of life in comparison to hemodialysis [1]. To date, the open approach has been the gold standard in KT, despite its invasiveness and high morbidity. Minimally invasive surgery may be a good alternative to reduce the morbidity associated with the open approach, especially in immunocompromised and fragile KT patients and even more in obese recipients who are known to have a higher

Minimally invasive surgery (using a pure laparoscopic or a robot-assisted approach) offers significant benefits to patients compared to open surgery, including improved peri- and postoperative outcomes, such as shorter hospital stay, less

#### **Chapter 9**

*Medical Robotics - New Achievements*

[15] van Zanten F, Schraffordt Koops SE, O'Sullivan OE, Lenters E, Broeders I, O'Reilly BA. Robot-assisted surgery for the management of apical prolapse: A bi-Centre prospective cohort study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. International Urogynecology Journal.

[23] Borahay MA, Oge T, Walsh TM, Patel PR, Rodriguez AM, Kilic GS. Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy using barbed delayed absorbable sutures. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology.

2015;**26**(5):649-656

2014;**21**(3):412-416

2013;**19**(1):31-33

2017;**24**(1):12-13

[24] Abernethy M, Vasquez E,

do we place the sacrocolpopexy stitch? A magnetic resonance imaging investigation. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery.

[25] Guan X, Ma Y, Gisseman J,

Kenton K, Brubaker L, Mueller E. Where

Kleithermes C, Liu J. Robotic single-site Sacrocolpopexy using barbed suture anchoring and peritoneal tunneling technique: Tips and tricks. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology.

[26] Liu J, Bardawil E, Zurawin RK, Wu J, Fu H, Orejuela F, et al. Robotic single-site Sacrocolpopexy with

[27] Matanes E, Lauterbach R,

[28] Lowenstein L, Matanes E,

2017;**23**(3):e14-ee8

retroperitoneal tunneling. JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. 2018;**22**(3):e2018.00009

Mustafa-Mikhail S, Amit A, Wiener Z, Lowenstein L. Single port robotic assisted Sacrocolpopexy: Our experience with the first 25 cases. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery.

Burke YZ. Surgical technique for robotassisted Sacrocolpopexy performed via a single port. Urology. 2017;**103**:272

2019;**126**(8):1065-1073

[16] Jong K, Klein T, Zimmern PE. Long-

Cosson M, Giraudet G, Brito LGO. Does sacrocolpopexy present heterogeneity in its surgical technique? A systematic review. Neurourology and Urodynamics.

[18] Habib N, Centini G, Pizzoferrato AC, Bui C, Argay I, Bader G. Laparoscopic promontofixation: Where to stop the anterior dissection? Medical Hypotheses. 2019;**124**:60-63

[19] McCullough M, Valceus J, Downes K, Hoyte L. The ureter as a landmark for robotic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery.

[20] Ferrando CA, Paraiso MFR. A prospective randomized trial comparing Restorelle Y mesh and flat mesh for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive

[21] Linder BJ, Anand M, Klingele CJ, Trabuco EC, Gebhart JB, Occhino JA. Outcomes of robotic Sacrocolpopexy

[22] Tan-Kim J, Nager CW, Grimes CL, Luber KM, Lukacz ES, Brown HW, et al. A randomized trial of vaginal mesh attachment techniques for

Surgery. 2019;**25**(2):83-87

using only absorbable suture for mesh fixation. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery.

2017;**23**(1):13-16

term outcomes of robotic mesh sacrocolpopexy. Journal of Robotic Surgery. 2018;**12**(3):455-460

[17] Moroni RM, Juliato CRT,

2018;**37**(8):2335-2345

2012;**18**(3):162-164

**124**

## Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation

*Karel Decaestecker, Angelo Territo, Riccardo Campi, Benjamin Van Parys, Giulio Bevilacqua, Liesbeth Desender and Alberto Breda*

#### **Abstract**

Robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) has recently been introduced to reduce the morbidity of open kidney transplantation (KT). Robot-assisted surgery has been able to overcome many of the limitations of classical laparoscopy, certainly in complex and technically demanding procedures, such as vascular and ureteral anastomosis. Since the first RAKT in 2010, this technique has been standardized and evaluated in highly experienced robot and KT centers around the world. In Europe, the European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) created an RAKT working group in 2016 in order to prospectively follow the outcomes of RAKT. When performed by surgeons with both robotic and KT experience, RAKT has been proven to be safe and reproducible in selected cases and yield excellent graft function with a low complication rate. Multiple institutions have now adopted RAKT, and its use will likely increase in the near future. However, structured training and proctoring will be mandatory for those embarking on RAKT in order to help them negotiate the learning curve and avoid technical mistakes. This chapter will describe RAKT from living and deceased donors and its application in kidney autotransplantation (KAT).

**Keywords:** kidney transplantation, living donor, deceased donor, autotransplantation, robot-assisted kidney transplantation, robot-assisted kidney autotransplantation, robot-assisted, robotic

#### **1. Introduction**

Kidney transplantation (KT) is considered the preferred treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) owing to the greater survival rate and better quality of life in comparison to hemodialysis [1]. To date, the open approach has been the gold standard in KT, despite its invasiveness and high morbidity. Minimally invasive surgery may be a good alternative to reduce the morbidity associated with the open approach, especially in immunocompromised and fragile KT patients and even more in obese recipients who are known to have a higher complication rate.

Minimally invasive surgery (using a pure laparoscopic or a robot-assisted approach) offers significant benefits to patients compared to open surgery, including improved peri- and postoperative outcomes, such as shorter hospital stay, less

postoperative pain, shorter convalescence period, fewer wound infections, and better cosmetic results [2]. Robot-assisted surgery has been able to overcome many of the limitations of classical laparoscopy, especially in complex and technically demanding surgical procedures, such as reconstruction or vascular and ureteral anastomosis. This has been attributed to the superb three-dimensional vision, magnification (12×), control of the camera by the surgeon, elimination of hand tremor, and seven degrees of freedom of movement [3].

This chapter will describe the history, technique and results of robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) from living donors and deceased donors, and also its application in kidney autotransplantation (KAT).

#### **2. Robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT): living donor**

#### **2.1 History and background**

#### *2.1.1 Living donor nephrectomy*

Open donor nephrectomies were carried out for nearly 50 years until the introduction of laparoscopy in 1995 by Ratner et al. [4]. Since its first description in 1995, the laparoscopic approach for donor nephrectomy has demonstrated to improve peri- and postoperative outcomes such as blood loss, pain, hospital stay, as well as cosmetic results, when compared to open surgery. In 2001, the first series of robot-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, using the da Vinci® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), was reported by the Group of the University of Illinois (Chicago) [5]. They demonstrated that robot-assisted nephrectomy is feasible, safe, and reproducible, providing similar results in comparison to the laparoscopic approach [6, 7]. Nowadays, around 40% of all KT in the USA and around 20% of all KT in Europe are performed with living donors. Every year, the ratio of "emotionally related" living donors to genetically related living donors increases slightly, with most of the living donors currently being family members [8]. In comparison with KT from deceased donors, KT from living donors provides several advantages in terms of long-term patient survival, earlier graft function, longer graft survival, less aggressive immunosuppressive regimens, and reduced waiting lists [9]. When a living donor has two equally functioning kidneys, the left kidney is preferred for donation as the left renal vein is longer compared to the right renal vein. When the kidney function of both kidneys is different, the lesser functioning kidney is used for donation, in order to limit the risks for the donor. Many concerns have been raised regarding the use of the right kidney for living donation, but literature suggests that right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is feasible and results in good graft function [10, 11].

#### *2.1.2 Living donor kidney transplantation*

RAKT has recently been introduced to reduce the morbidity of open KT. Since the first RAKT in 2010 by Giulianotti et al. [12] in the USA, this technique has been standardized and evaluated in highly experienced robot and KT centers around the world. In 2014 Menon et al. [13] standardized the technique with the transperitoneal approach and regional hypothermia known as the Vattikuti-Medanta technique. The authors highlighted that RAKT is a safe technique with possible advantages such as low intra- and postoperative complications, better cosmetic results, and superlative vision that could result in better quality of the

**127**

**Figure 1.**

*of the vessels.*

*Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90276*

et al. [20].

**2.2 Operative technique**

*2.2.1 Living donor nephrectomy*

nephrectomies [25] (**Figure 1**).

*2.2.2 Back table preparation*

vascular and ureteral anastomoses. The first two European pure RAKTs were performed in July 2015 by Breda et al. [14] and Doumerc et al. [15]. In 2016, the European Association of Urology (EAU) formed the EAU Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) RAKT working group in order to prospectively follow the outcomes of RAKT. Breda et al. [16] published the largest multicenter series of RAKT to date (120 patients). Angelo Territo et al. [17] addressed the functional results of RAKT from living donors at 1-year follow-up, and Vignolini et al. [18] developed a RAKT program with grafts from deceased donors. Siena et al. [19] described the technique for RAKT in grafts with multiple vessels. The feasibility of RAKT in children was described by the Ghent University group by Spinoit

To date, several techniques are described for living donor nephrectomy, including open surgery, pure laparoscopy, hand-assisted laparoscopy, and robot-assisted surgery [21–23]. The most commonly used technique is the minimally invasive transperitoneal laparoscopic approach. According to the literature, laparoscopic surgery for living donor nephrectomy achieves similar functional results compared to open and robot-assisted living donor nephrectomy, being equally safe for the donor. Robot-assisted surgery offers clear advantages over conventional laparoscopy, thanks to the use of EndoWrist instruments, three-dimensional view, enhanced visualization of the operative field (12x), and, possibly, a shorter learning curve [21, 24]. Open nephrectomy for donation may offer an advantage in challenging cases such as grafts with multiple vessels and/or vascular anomalies and prior abdominal surgery. Furthermore, the open approach may be preferred in centers with low experience in laparoscopy and/or a low case volume of living donor

After robot-assisted/laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy, the preparation of the kidney is performed at the back table close to the operating bed. First, the graft is placed in a basin with slushed ice and perfused with 1 liter of storage solution (Celsior®, or Custodiol®, or Institut Georges Lopez-1®). Next, the graft vessels

*Trocar placement and patient positioning for nephrectomy during RAKT on living donors. (A) Laparoscopically: patient positioned in lateral decubitus, linear port configuration along the pararectal line, with the camera placed at the most cephalic position (at the 12th rib level). (B) Robot-assisted: patient positioned in lateral decubitus; GelPOINT® device at the level of the ipsilateral fossa through a 6 cm Pfannenstiel incision; a 15-mm AirSeal trocar is placed in the device to introduce endovascular stapler and the 15-mm EndoCatch bag for organ extraction. An additional trocar is used to raise the kidney during the section* 

*Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90276*

*Medical Robotics - New Achievements*

**2.1 History and background**

*2.1.1 Living donor nephrectomy*

good graft function [10, 11].

*2.1.2 Living donor kidney transplantation*

and seven degrees of freedom of movement [3].

its application in kidney autotransplantation (KAT).

postoperative pain, shorter convalescence period, fewer wound infections, and better cosmetic results [2]. Robot-assisted surgery has been able to overcome many of the limitations of classical laparoscopy, especially in complex and technically demanding surgical procedures, such as reconstruction or vascular and ureteral anastomosis. This has been attributed to the superb three-dimensional vision, magnification (12×), control of the camera by the surgeon, elimination of hand tremor,

This chapter will describe the history, technique and results of robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) from living donors and deceased donors, and also

Open donor nephrectomies were carried out for nearly 50 years until the introduction of laparoscopy in 1995 by Ratner et al. [4]. Since its first description in 1995, the laparoscopic approach for donor nephrectomy has demonstrated to improve peri- and postoperative outcomes such as blood loss, pain, hospital stay, as well as cosmetic results, when compared to open surgery. In 2001, the first series of robot-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, using the da Vinci® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), was reported by the Group of the University of Illinois (Chicago) [5]. They demonstrated that robot-assisted nephrectomy is feasible, safe, and reproducible, providing similar results in comparison to the laparoscopic approach [6, 7]. Nowadays, around 40% of all KT in the USA and around 20% of all KT in Europe are performed with living donors. Every year, the ratio of "emotionally related" living donors to genetically related living donors increases slightly, with most of the living donors currently being family members [8]. In comparison with KT from deceased donors, KT from living donors provides several advantages in terms of long-term patient survival, earlier graft function, longer graft survival, less aggressive immunosuppressive regimens, and reduced waiting lists [9]. When a living donor has two equally functioning kidneys, the left kidney is preferred for donation as the left renal vein is longer compared to the right renal vein. When the kidney function of both kidneys is different, the lesser functioning kidney is used for donation, in order to limit the risks for the donor. Many concerns have been raised regarding the use of the right kidney for living donation, but literature suggests that right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is feasible and results in

RAKT has recently been introduced to reduce the morbidity of open KT. Since the first RAKT in 2010 by Giulianotti et al. [12] in the USA, this technique has been standardized and evaluated in highly experienced robot and KT centers around the world. In 2014 Menon et al. [13] standardized the technique with the transperitoneal approach and regional hypothermia known as the Vattikuti-Medanta technique. The authors highlighted that RAKT is a safe technique with possible advantages such as low intra- and postoperative complications, better cosmetic results, and superlative vision that could result in better quality of the

**2. Robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT): living donor**

**126**

vascular and ureteral anastomoses. The first two European pure RAKTs were performed in July 2015 by Breda et al. [14] and Doumerc et al. [15]. In 2016, the European Association of Urology (EAU) formed the EAU Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) RAKT working group in order to prospectively follow the outcomes of RAKT. Breda et al. [16] published the largest multicenter series of RAKT to date (120 patients). Angelo Territo et al. [17] addressed the functional results of RAKT from living donors at 1-year follow-up, and Vignolini et al. [18] developed a RAKT program with grafts from deceased donors. Siena et al. [19] described the technique for RAKT in grafts with multiple vessels. The feasibility of RAKT in children was described by the Ghent University group by Spinoit et al. [20].

#### **2.2 Operative technique**

#### *2.2.1 Living donor nephrectomy*

To date, several techniques are described for living donor nephrectomy, including open surgery, pure laparoscopy, hand-assisted laparoscopy, and robot-assisted surgery [21–23]. The most commonly used technique is the minimally invasive transperitoneal laparoscopic approach. According to the literature, laparoscopic surgery for living donor nephrectomy achieves similar functional results compared to open and robot-assisted living donor nephrectomy, being equally safe for the donor. Robot-assisted surgery offers clear advantages over conventional laparoscopy, thanks to the use of EndoWrist instruments, three-dimensional view, enhanced visualization of the operative field (12x), and, possibly, a shorter learning curve [21, 24]. Open nephrectomy for donation may offer an advantage in challenging cases such as grafts with multiple vessels and/or vascular anomalies and prior abdominal surgery. Furthermore, the open approach may be preferred in centers with low experience in laparoscopy and/or a low case volume of living donor nephrectomies [25] (**Figure 1**).

#### *2.2.2 Back table preparation*

After robot-assisted/laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy, the preparation of the kidney is performed at the back table close to the operating bed. First, the graft is placed in a basin with slushed ice and perfused with 1 liter of storage solution (Celsior®, or Custodiol®, or Institut Georges Lopez-1®). Next, the graft vessels

#### **Figure 1.**

*Trocar placement and patient positioning for nephrectomy during RAKT on living donors. (A) Laparoscopically: patient positioned in lateral decubitus, linear port configuration along the pararectal line, with the camera placed at the most cephalic position (at the 12th rib level). (B) Robot-assisted: patient positioned in lateral decubitus; GelPOINT® device at the level of the ipsilateral fossa through a 6 cm Pfannenstiel incision; a 15-mm AirSeal trocar is placed in the device to introduce endovascular stapler and the 15-mm EndoCatch bag for organ extraction. An additional trocar is used to raise the kidney during the section of the vessels.*

are carefully dissected. If the donor kidney has multiple arteries or veins, a vascular reconstruction can be performed. Siena et al. [19] demonstrated that RAKT is possible using grafts with multiple vessels. The ureter can be pre-stented with a double-J if preferred. Subsequently, the kidney is wrapped in a gauze filled with slushed ice, with the artery and vein brought out through an opening in the gauze (**Figure 2**). The aim is to keep the donor kidney at a constant low temperature after insertion in the abdominal cavity, until the vascular anastomoses are finished, and the kidney is reperfused. In addition, the gauze can prevent potential graft injury from manipulation with the robot arms. To keep the graft temperature below 20°C intracorporeally, ice is added through the GelPOINT® (Applied Medical, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, USA) every 15 min.

#### *2.2.3 Robot-assisted living donor kidney transplantation*

#### *2.2.3.1 Patient and trocar positioning*

When using the da Vinci Si® or X® system, the patient is positioned in lithotomy position according to the Vattikuti-Medanta technique [26]. When the da Vinci Xi® system is used, the patient is positioned in dorsal decubitus. A 20–30° Trendelenburg position is recommended. The required robotic instruments are monopolar scissors, Potts scissors, bipolar forceps, prograsp forceps, large needle driver, black diamond micro-forceps, and bulldog clamps. A 12 mm camera port is inserted in the supra-umbilical area, and a pneumoperitoneum is created. Veress needle puncture, optical trocar access, or the Hasson technique can also be used for access to the abdomen and creation of a pneumoperitoneum. The open approach (Hasson technique) has been reported to result in fewer complications [27]. Three extra robotic 8 mm ports are placed under vision, and the robot is docked.

#### **Figure 2.**

*Preparation of the kidney graft after nephrectomy during RAKT from living donors. (A) Ureteral double J stent is placed in the graft. (B) A central hole in the gauze from which the artery and vein are outside. (C and D) The graft is wrapped in a gauze jacket filled with ice slush.*

**129**

**Figure 3.**

*left fossa and 1 in the right iliac fossa.*

*Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90276*

pneumoperitoneum at 8 mmHg.

*2.2.3.2 Transplant bed preparation*

*2.2.3.3 Venous and arterial anastomosis*

Minimal changes in port placement are related according to the robotic system used (**Figure 3**). A GelPOINT® device replaces the camera trocar through a 6–8 cm (four fingers) periumbilical incision (**Figure 4**) once the transplant bed preparation has been performed. Alternatively, the GelPOINT® device can be introduced from the beginning through a 6–8 cm periumbilical incision, containing the camera and an assistant port. This GelPOINT® device is used to introduce the graft in the abdominal cavity (**Figure 4**) and allows for insertion of slushed ice (± 200 ml) via modified Toomey syringes into the abdominal cavity, surrounding the graft surface with the intent to achieve regional hypothermia (i.e., low constant temperature (<20°C) of the graft). Additionally, GelPOINT® is a useful device for fast hand introduction if needed (i.e., in case of massive bleeding). In selected cases, the graft can be introduced transvaginal as described by few authors [15]. The AirSeal® (Conmed, Utica, NY, USA) system might be used in order to maintain a stable and low-pressure

Accurate dissection of the external iliac vessels is performed. Subsequently, the bladder is prepared for ureteral reimplantation. A retroperitoneal pouch is created by incision of the peritoneum following a transverse line above the level of the appendix and mobilization of the peritoneal flaps. These will be used to cover (retroperitonealize) the graft once the vascular anastomosis is completed. Although RAKT is a transperitoneal approach, retroperitonealization of the kidney is per-

After clamping of the external iliac vein with robotic bulldog clamps and the distal clamp followed by the proximal clamp, a longitudinal venotomy using cold scissors is performed. An end-to-side anastomosis between the graft renal vein and the external iliac vein is created, using a 6/0 Gore-Tex® CV-6 TTc-9 or THc-12 needle (W.L. Gore and Associates Inc., Flagstaff, AZ, USA) continuous suture. At the proximal angle, the suture is tied to secure the posterior wall of the anastomosis watertight and to avoid stenosis, and then the continuous suture is completed until the distal angle. Prior to finishing the anastomosis, the lumen is flushed with heparinized solution using a 4.8 Fr ureteric catheter. The catheter may be pulled out by the assistant from outside the abdomen while the surgeon

*Trocar placement and patient positioning for RAKT for Si/X/Xi in the right iliac fossa. Patient repositioned in dorsal decubitus, legs in Allen stirrups, table in 20–30° Trendelenburg; GelPOINT® device at the level of the umbilicus through a 6–8 cm vertical peri-umbilical incision; camera trocar and ice applicator in the GelPOINT® (eventually with 12 mm AirSeal® port); 3–8 mm robotic trocars in the lower abdomen, 2 in the* 

formed to avoid pedicle torsion and to enable future graft biopsies.

#### *Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90276*

*Medical Robotics - New Achievements*

Santa Margarita, CA, USA) every 15 min.

*2.2.3.1 Patient and trocar positioning*

*2.2.3 Robot-assisted living donor kidney transplantation*

are carefully dissected. If the donor kidney has multiple arteries or veins, a vascular reconstruction can be performed. Siena et al. [19] demonstrated that RAKT is possible using grafts with multiple vessels. The ureter can be pre-stented with a double-J if preferred. Subsequently, the kidney is wrapped in a gauze filled with slushed ice, with the artery and vein brought out through an opening in the gauze (**Figure 2**). The aim is to keep the donor kidney at a constant low temperature after insertion in the abdominal cavity, until the vascular anastomoses are finished, and the kidney is reperfused. In addition, the gauze can prevent potential graft injury from manipulation with the robot arms. To keep the graft temperature below 20°C intracorporeally, ice is added through the GelPOINT® (Applied Medical, Rancho

When using the da Vinci Si® or X® system, the patient is positioned in lithotomy position according to the Vattikuti-Medanta technique [26]. When the da Vinci Xi® system is used, the patient is positioned in dorsal decubitus. A 20–30° Trendelenburg position is recommended. The required robotic instruments are monopolar scissors, Potts scissors, bipolar forceps, prograsp forceps, large needle driver, black diamond micro-forceps, and bulldog clamps. A 12 mm camera port is inserted in the supra-umbilical area, and a pneumoperitoneum is created. Veress needle puncture, optical trocar access, or the Hasson technique can also be used for access to the abdomen and creation of a pneumoperitoneum. The open approach (Hasson technique) has been reported to result in fewer complications [27]. Three extra robotic 8 mm ports are placed under vision, and the robot is docked.

*Preparation of the kidney graft after nephrectomy during RAKT from living donors. (A) Ureteral double J stent is placed in the graft. (B) A central hole in the gauze from which the artery and vein are outside. (C and* 

*D) The graft is wrapped in a gauze jacket filled with ice slush.*

**128**

**Figure 2.**

Minimal changes in port placement are related according to the robotic system used (**Figure 3**). A GelPOINT® device replaces the camera trocar through a 6–8 cm (four fingers) periumbilical incision (**Figure 4**) once the transplant bed preparation has been performed. Alternatively, the GelPOINT® device can be introduced from the beginning through a 6–8 cm periumbilical incision, containing the camera and an assistant port. This GelPOINT® device is used to introduce the graft in the abdominal cavity (**Figure 4**) and allows for insertion of slushed ice (± 200 ml) via modified Toomey syringes into the abdominal cavity, surrounding the graft surface with the intent to achieve regional hypothermia (i.e., low constant temperature (<20°C) of the graft). Additionally, GelPOINT® is a useful device for fast hand introduction if needed (i.e., in case of massive bleeding). In selected cases, the graft can be introduced transvaginal as described by few authors [15]. The AirSeal® (Conmed, Utica, NY, USA) system might be used in order to maintain a stable and low-pressure pneumoperitoneum at 8 mmHg.

#### *2.2.3.2 Transplant bed preparation*

Accurate dissection of the external iliac vessels is performed. Subsequently, the bladder is prepared for ureteral reimplantation. A retroperitoneal pouch is created by incision of the peritoneum following a transverse line above the level of the appendix and mobilization of the peritoneal flaps. These will be used to cover (retroperitonealize) the graft once the vascular anastomosis is completed. Although RAKT is a transperitoneal approach, retroperitonealization of the kidney is performed to avoid pedicle torsion and to enable future graft biopsies.

#### *2.2.3.3 Venous and arterial anastomosis*

After clamping of the external iliac vein with robotic bulldog clamps and the distal clamp followed by the proximal clamp, a longitudinal venotomy using cold scissors is performed. An end-to-side anastomosis between the graft renal vein and the external iliac vein is created, using a 6/0 Gore-Tex® CV-6 TTc-9 or THc-12 needle (W.L. Gore and Associates Inc., Flagstaff, AZ, USA) continuous suture. At the proximal angle, the suture is tied to secure the posterior wall of the anastomosis watertight and to avoid stenosis, and then the continuous suture is completed until the distal angle. Prior to finishing the anastomosis, the lumen is flushed with heparinized solution using a 4.8 Fr ureteric catheter. The catheter may be pulled out by the assistant from outside the abdomen while the surgeon

#### **Figure 3.**

*Trocar placement and patient positioning for RAKT for Si/X/Xi in the right iliac fossa. Patient repositioned in dorsal decubitus, legs in Allen stirrups, table in 20–30° Trendelenburg; GelPOINT® device at the level of the umbilicus through a 6–8 cm vertical peri-umbilical incision; camera trocar and ice applicator in the GelPOINT® (eventually with 12 mm AirSeal® port); 3–8 mm robotic trocars in the lower abdomen, 2 in the left fossa and 1 in the right iliac fossa.*

#### **Figure 4.**

*Introduction of the kidney and ice through the Gel-POINT®. (A) The GelPOINT® device is placed through a 6 cm (four fingers) incision. (B) Ice slush is introduced in the abdominal cavity using modified Toomey syringes. (C and D) The graft is introduced into the abdominal cavity. (E and F) Once the graft is inside, Gel-POINT® cup is inserted to close the abdomen.*

tightens the knot to secure the anastomosis (**Figure 5**). Next, the graft vein is clamped, and the bulldog clamps are removed from the external iliac vein and positioned on the external iliac artery, first proximally and then distally. The artery may be incised with the cold scissors or a scalpel at the 1–2 o'clock position. Arteriotomy may be completed using a laparoscopic aortic punch to transform the linear arteriotomy into a circular one. In both arterial and venous anastomosis, the anastomosis is started by passing the needle in the external iliac vessel in an outside-inside direction and then inside-outside through the graft vessel (**Figure 6**). For the venous anastomosis, the knot is tied now, and the needle is then passed outside-inside through the renal vein to start the running suture. For the arterial anastomosis, the suture is not tied yet (as for the venous anastomosis), and the needle is passed through the graft artery outside-inside before tying the suture to a loop that is left outside. This is done to prevent a difficult first needle passing in a small arterial lumen. After completing the arterial anastomosis, a clamp is positioned on the graft artery while the external iliac artery is declamped. If no sign of leakage (bleeding) is observed, the graft vein and artery are declamped. The evaluation of the graft perfusion is primarily visual: pink colorization, a pulsatile graft artery, filling of the renal vein, and small bleedings from the renal capsule and urine output are signs of perfusion. Doppler ultrasound evaluation (drop-in ultrasound probe linked to TilePro™ function of the da Vinci Surgical System) is recommended to verify adequate perfusion of the graft.

#### *2.2.3.4 Ureteroneocystostomy*

After flipping the kidney on the psoas and retroperitonealization of the graft, the ureteroneocystostomy is performed according to the Lich-Gregoire technique using a Monocryl or PDS 5/0 (Ethicon Inc., Cincinnati, OH, USA) continuous

**131**

**Figure 6.**

can be removed after 3 weeks.

suture (**Figure 7**). Care is taken to construct an adequate detrusor tunnel as antireflux mechanism. A double-J stent is inserted to protect the anastomosis. The stent

*inside through the graft vessel. (C and D) The running suture is completed at the caudal angle.*

*Overview of the main steps for arterial anastomosis during RAKT from living donors. (A) The robotic scalpel is used to make a linear incision on the iliac artery, converting it in circular hole with a laparoscopic vascular punch. (B) The running suture is carried out using a 6/0 Gore-Tex®; particularly in the caudal tying of an arterial anastomosis, the needle is passed in the external iliac vessel in an outside-inside direction, then outside-*

*Overview of the main steps for venous anastomosis during RAKT from living donors. (A) The graft renal vein is anastomosed in an end-to-side continuous fashion to the external iliac vein using a 6/0 Gore-Tex®. (B and C) At cranial angle, the suture is knotted to fix the posterior wall of the anastomosis. (D and E) The running suture is completed at the caudal angle. (F) Before completing the anastomosis, the lumen is flushed with* 

*Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90276*

*heparinized solution using a 4.8 Fr ureteral catheter.*

**Figure 5.**

#### **Figure 5.**

*Medical Robotics - New Achievements*

*Gel-POINT® cup is inserted to close the abdomen.*

tightens the knot to secure the anastomosis (**Figure 5**). Next, the graft vein is clamped, and the bulldog clamps are removed from the external iliac vein and positioned on the external iliac artery, first proximally and then distally. The artery may be incised with the cold scissors or a scalpel at the 1–2 o'clock position. Arteriotomy may be completed using a laparoscopic aortic punch to transform the linear arteriotomy into a circular one. In both arterial and venous anastomosis, the anastomosis is started by passing the needle in the external iliac vessel in an outside-inside direction and then inside-outside through the graft vessel (**Figure 6**). For the venous anastomosis, the knot is tied now, and the needle is then passed outside-inside through the renal vein to start the running suture. For the arterial anastomosis, the suture is not tied yet (as for the venous anastomosis), and the needle is passed through the graft artery outside-inside before tying the suture to a loop that is left outside. This is done to prevent a difficult first needle passing in a small arterial lumen. After completing the arterial anastomosis, a clamp is positioned on the graft artery while the external iliac artery is declamped. If no sign of leakage (bleeding) is observed, the graft vein and artery are declamped. The evaluation of the graft perfusion is primarily visual: pink colorization, a pulsatile graft artery, filling of the renal vein, and small bleedings from the renal capsule and urine output are signs of perfusion. Doppler ultrasound evaluation (drop-in ultrasound probe linked to TilePro™ function of the da Vinci Surgical System) is recommended to verify adequate perfusion of the

*Introduction of the kidney and ice through the Gel-POINT®. (A) The GelPOINT® device is placed through a 6 cm (four fingers) incision. (B) Ice slush is introduced in the abdominal cavity using modified Toomey syringes. (C and D) The graft is introduced into the abdominal cavity. (E and F) Once the graft is inside,* 

After flipping the kidney on the psoas and retroperitonealization of the graft, the ureteroneocystostomy is performed according to the Lich-Gregoire technique using a Monocryl or PDS 5/0 (Ethicon Inc., Cincinnati, OH, USA) continuous

**130**

graft.

**Figure 4.**

*2.2.3.4 Ureteroneocystostomy*

*Overview of the main steps for venous anastomosis during RAKT from living donors. (A) The graft renal vein is anastomosed in an end-to-side continuous fashion to the external iliac vein using a 6/0 Gore-Tex®. (B and C) At cranial angle, the suture is knotted to fix the posterior wall of the anastomosis. (D and E) The running suture is completed at the caudal angle. (F) Before completing the anastomosis, the lumen is flushed with heparinized solution using a 4.8 Fr ureteral catheter.*

#### **Figure 6.**

*Overview of the main steps for arterial anastomosis during RAKT from living donors. (A) The robotic scalpel is used to make a linear incision on the iliac artery, converting it in circular hole with a laparoscopic vascular punch. (B) The running suture is carried out using a 6/0 Gore-Tex®; particularly in the caudal tying of an arterial anastomosis, the needle is passed in the external iliac vessel in an outside-inside direction, then outsideinside through the graft vessel. (C and D) The running suture is completed at the caudal angle.*

suture (**Figure 7**). Care is taken to construct an adequate detrusor tunnel as antireflux mechanism. A double-J stent is inserted to protect the anastomosis. The stent can be removed after 3 weeks.

**Figure 7.**

*Ureteroneocystostomy performed according to the Lich-Gregoir technique. In (A) and (B) running suture between ureteral and bladder mucosa using 5-0 Monocryl. In (C) and (D) the details of the anti-reflux tunnel.*

#### **2.3 Results**

After reporting a single center experience on 17 cases of RAKT from living donation [28], the European Experience in RAKT was published in 2018. One hundred twenty cases were prospectively collected in eight centers across Europe [16]. The authors demonstrated the low complication rate (at 1 month follow-up) while maintaining excellent graft function (median eGFR at 30 days was 58 ml/min) and cosmetic results (**Figure 8**). Three cases of graft loss due to arterial thrombosis during the first postoperative week were reported in these series (2.5%). This complication might be associated with technical errors during the learning curve. Territo et al. [17] demonstrated that the functional results at 1-year follow-up were not statistically different from the functional results at 1-month follow-up. The complication rate remained low. To date, there are no studies available comparing RAKT with the conventional open approach. However, an increasing body of evidence confirms that RAKT is at least non-inferior to open KT regarding both patient and graft survival [16, 29].

#### **3. Robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT): deceased donor**

#### **3.1 Background**

The vast majority of RAKT worldwide has been performed from living donors, raising concerns regarding the generalizability of RAKT outcomes in the broader and more challenging scenario of deceased donors.

While it has been shown that the learning curve for elective RAKT (i.e., living donor RAKT) may be minimal for surgeons with extensive experience in robotic surgery (regardless of their background in open KT) [30, 31], RAKT

**133**

framework.

**Figure 8.**

*Esthetic results of RAKT 3 months later.*

sive KT [18].

dedicated operating room [18].

**3.3 Selection criteria for RAKT from deceased donors**

*Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90276*

from deceased donors has unique technical and logistical challenges. Indeed, due to the timeframe of organ preservation, it can be considered an unforeseeable "emergency" robotic procedure, which requires a structured multidisciplinary

To fill this gap and move the field forward, the University of Florence group has recently developed a RAKT program from deceased donors aiming to safely and progressively increase the pool of patients who may benefit from minimally inva-

The cornerstones of this program are as follows: (a) an extensive experience in open KT (n > 1100 KTs from 1991) and robotic urologic surgery (>4000 procedures from 2010, including radical prostatectomy, radical nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy, radical cystectomy, dismembered pyeloplasty, and ureteral reconstructive surgery); (b) a codified technique for RAKT [13, 16]; (c) a structured modular training in RAKT, including e-learning, simulation, and dry lab and wet lab training on animal models [32]; (d) the availability of a multidisciplinary team (composed by urologists, anesthesiologists, nephrologists, radiologists, as well as operating room support staff and nurses) with experience in KT and robotic surgery; and (e) the opportunity to perform RAKT at nighttime and/or during the weekend in a

Following the University of Florence, recipient's exclusion criteria for RAKT

from deceased donors include the following: (a) age < 18 years; (b) severe comorbidities with contraindication for robotic surgery; (c) significant atherosclerotic plaques at the level of external iliac vessels; (d) highly complex vascular graft anatomy (likely to require multiple anastomoses); (e) multiple previous abdominal surgeries; and (f) previous KT. A key element of the RAKT program

**3.2 Development of a structured RAKT program from deceased donors**

*Medical Robotics - New Achievements*

**132**

**2.3 Results**

**Figure 7.**

graft survival [16, 29].

**3.1 Background**

After reporting a single center experience on 17 cases of RAKT from living donation [28], the European Experience in RAKT was published in 2018. One hundred twenty cases were prospectively collected in eight centers across Europe [16]. The authors demonstrated the low complication rate (at 1 month follow-up) while maintaining excellent graft function (median eGFR at 30 days was 58 ml/min) and cosmetic results (**Figure 8**). Three cases of graft loss due to arterial thrombosis during the first postoperative week were reported in these series (2.5%). This complication might be associated with technical errors during the learning curve. Territo et al. [17] demonstrated that the functional results at 1-year follow-up were not statistically different from the functional results at 1-month follow-up. The complication rate remained low. To date, there are no studies available comparing RAKT with the conventional open approach. However, an increasing body of evidence confirms that RAKT is at least non-inferior to open KT regarding both patient and

*Ureteroneocystostomy performed according to the Lich-Gregoir technique. In (A) and (B) running suture between ureteral and bladder mucosa using 5-0 Monocryl. In (C) and (D) the details of the anti-reflux tunnel.*

**3. Robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT): deceased donor**

and more challenging scenario of deceased donors.

The vast majority of RAKT worldwide has been performed from living donors, raising concerns regarding the generalizability of RAKT outcomes in the broader

While it has been shown that the learning curve for elective RAKT (i.e., living donor RAKT) may be minimal for surgeons with extensive experience in robotic surgery (regardless of their background in open KT) [30, 31], RAKT

**Figure 8.** *Esthetic results of RAKT 3 months later.*

from deceased donors has unique technical and logistical challenges. Indeed, due to the timeframe of organ preservation, it can be considered an unforeseeable "emergency" robotic procedure, which requires a structured multidisciplinary framework.

#### **3.2 Development of a structured RAKT program from deceased donors**

To fill this gap and move the field forward, the University of Florence group has recently developed a RAKT program from deceased donors aiming to safely and progressively increase the pool of patients who may benefit from minimally invasive KT [18].

The cornerstones of this program are as follows: (a) an extensive experience in open KT (n > 1100 KTs from 1991) and robotic urologic surgery (>4000 procedures from 2010, including radical prostatectomy, radical nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy, radical cystectomy, dismembered pyeloplasty, and ureteral reconstructive surgery); (b) a codified technique for RAKT [13, 16]; (c) a structured modular training in RAKT, including e-learning, simulation, and dry lab and wet lab training on animal models [32]; (d) the availability of a multidisciplinary team (composed by urologists, anesthesiologists, nephrologists, radiologists, as well as operating room support staff and nurses) with experience in KT and robotic surgery; and (e) the opportunity to perform RAKT at nighttime and/or during the weekend in a dedicated operating room [18].

#### **3.3 Selection criteria for RAKT from deceased donors**

Following the University of Florence, recipient's exclusion criteria for RAKT from deceased donors include the following: (a) age < 18 years; (b) severe comorbidities with contraindication for robotic surgery; (c) significant atherosclerotic plaques at the level of external iliac vessels; (d) highly complex vascular graft anatomy (likely to require multiple anastomoses); (e) multiple previous abdominal surgeries; and (f) previous KT. A key element of the RAKT program

from deceased donor is also represented by the decision-making process aiming to assess the feasibility of RAKT in light of the patient-, graft-, and robotic team-related factors [18] (**Figure 9**). As such, the decision to proceed with an "emergency" RAKT from a deceased donor relies on a careful balance of the potential advantages of robotic surgery (for both the patient and the surgeon) and the logistical challenges of setting up the operating room and the robotic surgical team in a fixed timeframe, respecting the recipient's selection criteria and the maximal thresholds of cold ischemia time. Specifically, planning RAKT from deceased donors follows a pre-specified decision-making process. First, after the alert of a kidney offer is addressed to our transplant team by the Regional Allocation Centre, the surgeon in charge considers the opportunity to perform RAKT according to his/her personal experience and the availability of an expert bedside assistant as well as an expert robotic operating room nursing staff. Then, after the recipient is admitted to the nephrology unit for the pretransplant clinical work-up (which systematically includes a computed tomography angiogram of the abdomen to check for severe atherosclerotic plaques at the external iliac vessels), the surgeon checks that the recipient's inclusion criteria are met. Subsequently, the robotic operating room is checked for availability (even during weekends, at nighttime, and potentially during daytime, if elective non-oncologic robotic procedures can be safely rescheduled), ensuring that the bench surgery starts within 16 hours from the beginning of cold storage of the kidney. Finally, at the time of bench surgery, the graft is carefully inspected to ensure no exclusion criteria for RAKT is present (i.e., highly complex vascular anatomy requiring multiple vascular anastomoses).

#### **3.4 The University of Florence technique for RAKT from deceased donors**

A step-by-step overview of our surgical technique for RAKT from deceased donors is shown in **Figures 10**–**12**.

**135**

transplantation.

**Figure 10.**

quent intracorporeal arterial anastomosis.

*Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90276*

All procedures were performed with the da Vinci Si® or Xi® robotic platform in a four-arm configuration with a zero-degree lens and one assistant port [18], by a single surgeon (G.V.) with extensive experience in robotic urologic surgery and open KT. The pneumoperitoneum pressure was set at 8 mm using the AirSeal® system,

*Overview of the main steps for bench surgery (A-E), port placement (F-H) and insertion of the graft into the* 

The robotic instruments employed for RAKT included the following: (a) large needle driver; (b) black diamond micro-forceps; (c) monopolar curved scissors; (d) Maryland bipolar forceps; (e) prograsp forceps; and (f) robotic bulldog clamps. Laparoscopic instruments included a needle driver, the suction device, laparoscopic scissors, Hem-o-lok (Weck Surgical Instruments, Teleflex Medical, Durham, NC) clips and clip applier, Johan grasping forceps, and the drop-in ultrasound probe. For insertion of the graft inside the abdominal cavity [13, 16], we employ the GelPOINT® or the Alexis® wound retractor (Applied Medical, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA) through a Pfannenstiel incision (**Figure 10**). Regional hypothermia is achieved by cooling the graft with ice slush introduced through the GelPOINT®

Intraoperative indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence videography (IFV) (i.e., FireFly® technology) is used to assess the graft and ureteral reperfusion [33, 34]. Abdominal organ procurement is performed according to established principles for donors after brain death (DBD) [35], while specific protocols were followed in the case of donors after circulatory death (DCD) [36]. In this setting, the kidneys are preserved in a hypothermic machine perfusion device (LifePort Kidney Transporter® (Organ Recovery Systems Inc. Chicago, USA)) before

During bench surgery (**Figure 10**), the graft is perfused with Celsior® solution and inserted in a gauze jacket filled with ice (and closed with 4–5 stiches) after placement of a 6F, 14 cm double-J stent. Two landmark stiches are placed on the upper and lower sides of the graft vein, while one landmark stich is placed on the upper side of the graft artery, to facilitate the subsequent orientation of the graft inside the abdominal cavity. Finally, the graft artery is modeled to facilitate subse-

while the Trendelenburg was tilted at 20° in all cases.

*abdominal cavity (I, J) during RAKT from deceased donors.*

via modified Toomey syringes, as previously described [13, 16].

**Figure 9.** *Flow-chart depicting the decision-making process for RAKT from deceased donors.*

#### **Figure 10.**

*Medical Robotics - New Achievements*

vascular anastomoses).

donors is shown in **Figures 10**–**12**.

from deceased donor is also represented by the decision-making process aiming to assess the feasibility of RAKT in light of the patient-, graft-, and robotic team-related factors [18] (**Figure 9**). As such, the decision to proceed with an "emergency" RAKT from a deceased donor relies on a careful balance of the potential advantages of robotic surgery (for both the patient and the surgeon) and the logistical challenges of setting up the operating room and the robotic surgical team in a fixed timeframe, respecting the recipient's selection criteria and the maximal thresholds of cold ischemia time. Specifically, planning RAKT from deceased donors follows a pre-specified decision-making process. First, after the alert of a kidney offer is addressed to our transplant team by the Regional Allocation Centre, the surgeon in charge considers the opportunity to perform RAKT according to his/her personal experience and the availability of an expert bedside assistant as well as an expert robotic operating room nursing staff. Then, after the recipient is admitted to the nephrology unit for the pretransplant clinical work-up (which systematically includes a computed tomography angiogram of the abdomen to check for severe atherosclerotic plaques at the external iliac vessels), the surgeon checks that the recipient's inclusion criteria are met. Subsequently, the robotic operating room is checked for availability (even during weekends, at nighttime, and potentially during daytime, if elective non-oncologic robotic procedures can be safely rescheduled), ensuring that the bench surgery starts within 16 hours from the beginning of cold storage of the kidney. Finally, at the time of bench surgery, the graft is carefully inspected to ensure no exclusion criteria for RAKT is present (i.e., highly complex vascular anatomy requiring multiple

**3.4 The University of Florence technique for RAKT from deceased donors**

*Flow-chart depicting the decision-making process for RAKT from deceased donors.*

A step-by-step overview of our surgical technique for RAKT from deceased

**134**

**Figure 9.**

*Overview of the main steps for bench surgery (A-E), port placement (F-H) and insertion of the graft into the abdominal cavity (I, J) during RAKT from deceased donors.*

All procedures were performed with the da Vinci Si® or Xi® robotic platform in a four-arm configuration with a zero-degree lens and one assistant port [18], by a single surgeon (G.V.) with extensive experience in robotic urologic surgery and open KT. The pneumoperitoneum pressure was set at 8 mm using the AirSeal® system, while the Trendelenburg was tilted at 20° in all cases.

The robotic instruments employed for RAKT included the following: (a) large needle driver; (b) black diamond micro-forceps; (c) monopolar curved scissors; (d) Maryland bipolar forceps; (e) prograsp forceps; and (f) robotic bulldog clamps. Laparoscopic instruments included a needle driver, the suction device, laparoscopic scissors, Hem-o-lok (Weck Surgical Instruments, Teleflex Medical, Durham, NC) clips and clip applier, Johan grasping forceps, and the drop-in ultrasound probe.

For insertion of the graft inside the abdominal cavity [13, 16], we employ the GelPOINT® or the Alexis® wound retractor (Applied Medical, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA) through a Pfannenstiel incision (**Figure 10**). Regional hypothermia is achieved by cooling the graft with ice slush introduced through the GelPOINT® via modified Toomey syringes, as previously described [13, 16].

Intraoperative indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence videography (IFV) (i.e., FireFly® technology) is used to assess the graft and ureteral reperfusion [33, 34].

Abdominal organ procurement is performed according to established principles for donors after brain death (DBD) [35], while specific protocols were followed in the case of donors after circulatory death (DCD) [36]. In this setting, the kidneys are preserved in a hypothermic machine perfusion device (LifePort Kidney Transporter® (Organ Recovery Systems Inc. Chicago, USA)) before transplantation.

During bench surgery (**Figure 10**), the graft is perfused with Celsior® solution and inserted in a gauze jacket filled with ice (and closed with 4–5 stiches) after placement of a 6F, 14 cm double-J stent. Two landmark stiches are placed on the upper and lower sides of the graft vein, while one landmark stich is placed on the upper side of the graft artery, to facilitate the subsequent orientation of the graft inside the abdominal cavity. Finally, the graft artery is modeled to facilitate subsequent intracorporeal arterial anastomosis.

#### **Figure 11.**

*Overview of the main steps for venous anastomosis during RAKT from deceased donors. (A) A 1–2 cm venotomy is performed on the external iliac vein. (B) The lumen of the external iliac vein is flushed with heparinized saline. (C–F) The graft renal vein is anastomosed in an end-to-side continuous fashion to the external iliac vein using a 6/0 Gore-Tex®. (G and H) The running suture is completed at the caudal angle.*

#### **Figure 12.**

*Overview of the main steps for arterial anastomosis during RAKT from deceased donors. (A-E) A linear arteriotomy is performed and converted into a circular arteriotomy with cold scissors. (F-L) The renal artery is anastomosed in an end-to-side fashion to the external iliac artery using a 5/0 Gore-Tex suture on a CV-6 TTc-9 needle with two running sutures.*

RAKT from deceased donors at our Institution follows the principles of the Vattikuti-Medanta technique [13], adopted by all other centers included in the ERUS-RAKT group [16].

Of note, this technique allows performance of a *transperitoneal* RAKT with final retroperitonealization of the graft after kidney reperfusion.

After induction of general anesthesia, port placement, and docking of the da Vinci Si/Xi robotic platform, the iliac vessels are dissected and prepared for subsequent anastomoses. Then, an extraperitoneal pouch is created, and access is gained into the Retzius space in order to prepare the bladder for subsequent ureteroneocystostomy [18].

Then, a Pfannenstiel incision is performed, and the GelPOINT® device or the Alexis® wound retractor is set in place. The graft is subsequently introduced into the abdominal cavity and the robot is redocked. After achievement of regional hypothermia, a venotomy is performed, the lumen of the external iliac

**137**

*Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90276*

pelvis close to the iliac vessels.

from the enlarged polycystic kidneys [38].

free venous anastomosis even in case of short renal veins.

vein is flushed with heparinized saline, and the venous anastomosis is completed in an end-to-side fashion using a 6/0 Gore-Tex suture on a CV-6 TTc-9 needle (**Figure 11**). After additional graft cooling, a liner arteriotomy is performed and converted into a circular arteriotomy with cold scissors. The renal artery is then anastomosed in an end-to-side fashion to the external iliac artery using a 5/0 Gore-

Tex suture on a CV-6 TTc-9 needle with two running sutures (**Figure 12**). After the integrity of the anastomoses is tested, the graft is revascularized and inspected for color and turgor. Intraoperative Doppler ultrasound with the TilePro® feature is employed to check for graft reperfusion in case the da Vinci Si robotic platform is used. On the contrary, if the da Vinci Xi® platform is available, graft and ureteral reperfusions are assessed using intraoperative indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence videography (IFV) [33]. Then, the graft is allocated in the extraperitoneal pouch, which is partially closed by reapproximating the previously prepared peritoneal flaps with a V-lock running suture or single Hem-o-lok clips. This step avoids graft torsion, facilitates postoperative graft monitoring, and allows convenient access for ultrasound-guided transplant renal biopsy and/or placement of nephrostomy tubes, if needed [37]. Interestingly, we recorded a laminar perirenal fluid collection in almost all patients at ultrasound examinations during the first postoperative period (i.e., postoperative days 1 and 7 and at hospital discharge). However, subsequent follow-up evaluations showed a progressive reduction of this fluid collection until complete reabsorption within 20–30 days after surgery,

confirming the complete retroperitonealization of the graft [37].

The last step of the procedure is the ureterovesical anastomosis, which is performed according to a modified Lich-Gregoire technique over the double-J stent. The ureter is anastomosed to the bladder mucosa with two 4.0 Monocryl running sutures; then the detrusor muscle is closed creating an anti-reflux mechanism. The technique for RAKT from deceased donors evolved over time throughout the learning curve [34]. In particular, few technical nuances have been introduced, according to the surgeon's preference and skills, with the aim to improve the esthetic result and the cost-effectiveness of RAKT, as well as to optimize critical steps such as the assessment of graft and ureteral reperfusion before ureterovesical anastomosis [38].

These technical modifications include insertion of the graft into the abdominal cavity through a Pfannenstiel incision (rather than a periumbilical incision), to improve the esthetic result of RAKT and facilitate the positioning of the graft in the

Second, the placement of the GelPOINT® device is achieved *after* preparation of iliac vessels, bladder, and extraperitoneal pouch, to make sure not to injure the bladder while positioning the GelPOINT® device through the Pfannenstiel incision. Of note, in the case of recipients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD), all ports are positioned approximately 3 centimeters downward on the same lines to obtain an increased working space in the right iliac fossa far

While mirroring the Vattikuti-Medanta technique, the steps of venous and arterial anastomoses differ slightly from those originally described by the ERUS-RAKT group [18]. In all cases of right-sided grafts, an inferior vena cava (IVC) cuff is used during bench surgery to increase the length of the graft renal vein to facilitate the subsequent venous anastomosis. However, according to our experience in RAKT using right-sided grafts from living donors, the use of an IVC cuff does not appear to be mandatory, as the robotic platform facilitates the performance of a tension-

The venotomy is performed using the standard curved scissors (rather than the *Potts* scissors), and the venous anastomosis is completed in a two-step fashion: first, the posterior plate is closed using a running suture from 12 to 6 o'clock position;

#### *Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90276*

*Medical Robotics - New Achievements*

*Overview of the main steps for venous anastomosis during RAKT from deceased donors. (A) A 1–2 cm venotomy is performed on the external iliac vein. (B) The lumen of the external iliac vein is flushed with heparinized saline. (C–F) The graft renal vein is anastomosed in an end-to-side continuous fashion to the external iliac vein using a 6/0 Gore-Tex®. (G and H) The running suture is completed at the caudal angle.*

RAKT from deceased donors at our Institution follows the principles of the Vattikuti-Medanta technique [13], adopted by all other centers included in the

*Overview of the main steps for arterial anastomosis during RAKT from deceased donors. (A-E) A linear arteriotomy is performed and converted into a circular arteriotomy with cold scissors. (F-L) The renal artery is anastomosed in an end-to-side fashion to the external iliac artery using a 5/0 Gore-Tex suture on a CV-6 TTc-9* 

retroperitonealization of the graft after kidney reperfusion.

Of note, this technique allows performance of a *transperitoneal* RAKT with final

After induction of general anesthesia, port placement, and docking of the da Vinci

Si/Xi robotic platform, the iliac vessels are dissected and prepared for subsequent anastomoses. Then, an extraperitoneal pouch is created, and access is gained into the Retzius space in order to prepare the bladder for subsequent ureteroneocystostomy [18]. Then, a Pfannenstiel incision is performed, and the GelPOINT® device or the Alexis® wound retractor is set in place. The graft is subsequently introduced into the abdominal cavity and the robot is redocked. After achievement of regional hypothermia, a venotomy is performed, the lumen of the external iliac

**Figure 11.**

**136**

ERUS-RAKT group [16].

*needle with two running sutures.*

**Figure 12.**

vein is flushed with heparinized saline, and the venous anastomosis is completed in an end-to-side fashion using a 6/0 Gore-Tex suture on a CV-6 TTc-9 needle (**Figure 11**). After additional graft cooling, a liner arteriotomy is performed and converted into a circular arteriotomy with cold scissors. The renal artery is then anastomosed in an end-to-side fashion to the external iliac artery using a 5/0 Gore-Tex suture on a CV-6 TTc-9 needle with two running sutures (**Figure 12**).

After the integrity of the anastomoses is tested, the graft is revascularized and inspected for color and turgor. Intraoperative Doppler ultrasound with the TilePro® feature is employed to check for graft reperfusion in case the da Vinci Si robotic platform is used. On the contrary, if the da Vinci Xi® platform is available, graft and ureteral reperfusions are assessed using intraoperative indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence videography (IFV) [33]. Then, the graft is allocated in the extraperitoneal pouch, which is partially closed by reapproximating the previously prepared peritoneal flaps with a V-lock running suture or single Hem-o-lok clips. This step avoids graft torsion, facilitates postoperative graft monitoring, and allows convenient access for ultrasound-guided transplant renal biopsy and/or placement of nephrostomy tubes, if needed [37]. Interestingly, we recorded a laminar perirenal fluid collection in almost all patients at ultrasound examinations during the first postoperative period (i.e., postoperative days 1 and 7 and at hospital discharge). However, subsequent follow-up evaluations showed a progressive reduction of this fluid collection until complete reabsorption within 20–30 days after surgery, confirming the complete retroperitonealization of the graft [37].

The last step of the procedure is the ureterovesical anastomosis, which is performed according to a modified Lich-Gregoire technique over the double-J stent. The ureter is anastomosed to the bladder mucosa with two 4.0 Monocryl running sutures; then the detrusor muscle is closed creating an anti-reflux mechanism.

The technique for RAKT from deceased donors evolved over time throughout the learning curve [34]. In particular, few technical nuances have been introduced, according to the surgeon's preference and skills, with the aim to improve the esthetic result and the cost-effectiveness of RAKT, as well as to optimize critical steps such as the assessment of graft and ureteral reperfusion before ureterovesical anastomosis [38].

These technical modifications include insertion of the graft into the abdominal cavity through a Pfannenstiel incision (rather than a periumbilical incision), to improve the esthetic result of RAKT and facilitate the positioning of the graft in the pelvis close to the iliac vessels.

Second, the placement of the GelPOINT® device is achieved *after* preparation of iliac vessels, bladder, and extraperitoneal pouch, to make sure not to injure the bladder while positioning the GelPOINT® device through the Pfannenstiel incision. Of note, in the case of recipients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD), all ports are positioned approximately 3 centimeters downward on the same lines to obtain an increased working space in the right iliac fossa far from the enlarged polycystic kidneys [38].

While mirroring the Vattikuti-Medanta technique, the steps of venous and arterial anastomoses differ slightly from those originally described by the ERUS-RAKT group [18]. In all cases of right-sided grafts, an inferior vena cava (IVC) cuff is used during bench surgery to increase the length of the graft renal vein to facilitate the subsequent venous anastomosis. However, according to our experience in RAKT using right-sided grafts from living donors, the use of an IVC cuff does not appear to be mandatory, as the robotic platform facilitates the performance of a tensionfree venous anastomosis even in case of short renal veins.

The venotomy is performed using the standard curved scissors (rather than the *Potts* scissors), and the venous anastomosis is completed in a two-step fashion: first, the posterior plate is closed using a running suture from 12 to 6 o'clock position;

then, a knot is tied, and the anterior plate is completed with a second running suture with the same thread from 6 to 12 o'clock position (**Figure 11**). Tying the knot at 6 o'clock position after completion of the posterior plate may be key to reduce the tension on the anterior plate of the anastomosis, tailoring it according to the graft vein shape and length.

Similarly, the technique for arterial anastomosis follows the principles of the Vattikuti-Medanta technique [13, 16] with key technical nuances in case of deceased donors. First, the arteriotomy is achieved using standard cold scissors (rather than using the aortic punch). Second, due to the increased risk of atherosclerotic plaques and/or calcifications at the level of the external iliac arteries, the arterial anastomosis is performed using two different threads (**Figure 12**). First, the posterior plate of the anastomosis is closed using a running suture from 12 to 6 o'clock position, without tying a knot at 6 o'clock position. Then, the anterior plate is closed in a similar fashion with a running suture from 12 to 6 o'clock position using a second thread. Finally, the two free ends of the threads are tied together at 6 o'clock position, after checking the integrity of the anastomosis. This technique allows to tailor the tension of the anastomosis according to the stiffness and characteristics of both the renal and iliac vessels.

Third, the arterial anastomosis during RAKT from deceased donors is performed using a slightly thicker thread (Gore-Tex 5/0 instead of 6/0).

A specific challenge in case of RAKT from deceased donors is represented by the management of the Carrel's patch for arterial anastomosis. At the beginning of our robotic program for deceased donor RAKT [18], after careful bench surgery showing no significant atherosclerotic plaques at the level of the renal artery ostium, we performed the anastomosis using the Carrel's patch (**Figure 12**). However, with increasing experience the anastomosis is increasingly being performed *without* the Carrel's patch. While in few cases at the beginning of the program, the surgeon had to remove the patch due to the presence of significant atherosclerotic plaques, in the following cases, the Carrel's patch was removed intentionally during bench surgery, and the anastomosis was performed mirroring the technique adopted for living donor RAKT. From a technical point of view, and thanks to the robotic platform, removing the Carrel's patch may provide significant advantages for the surgeon. These include (a) the opportunity to perform a shorter arteriotomy; (b) a more anatomic anastomosis, thanks to the similar caliber of the graft renal artery and external iliac artery; and (c) the reduced risk of atherosclerotic plaques at the level of the graft renal artery (as compared to Carrel's aortic patch).

Finally, a specific technical modification proposed by our group for RAKT from deceased donors is represented by the use of intraoperative indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence videography (IFV) to assess graft and ureteral reperfusion [33, 34]. The tips and tricks for the use of this technique during RAKT from deceased donors are discussed in the previous publications [18, 33, 34]. In brief, a bolus of 0.3 mg/kg of ICG dissolved in 5% glucose (2 mg/ml) is administered intravenously after completion of vascular anastomoses to allow performance of a real-time qualitative and potentially quantitative assessment of graft and ureteral fluorescence signal [34]. Forty seconds after ICG injection, the camera is switched to reveal fluorescence at the level of vascular anastomoses and the renal parenchyma and ureter to check for their reperfusion, allowing to adapt the ureteral length according to the fluorescence signal to reduce the chance of postoperative ureteral strictures.

#### **3.5 RAKT from deceased donors: preliminary results**

Overall, 32 RAKTs have been performed at the University of Florence from January 2017 (22.4% of all KT in this period).

**139**

*Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90276*

iliac fossa.

periumbilical incision.

requiring graft nephrectomy).

still on dialysis.

worldwide.

program.

12 days post-op) was 47.2 ml/min/1.73m2

corticosteroids; and two patients for DGF.

median follow-up of 15 months was 58.6 ml/min/1.73m2

**3.6 RAKT from deceased donors: future perspectives**

surgery and after proper standardized modular training.

DCD donors; n = 14 [74%] from DBD donors).

cessfully completed without need of open conversion.

The first RAKT from a deceased donor was performed in August 2017. Of the 32 RAKT performed so far, 19 (59.4%) were from deceased donors (n = 5 [26%] from

The da Vinci Si and Xi robotic platform was used in 15 (79%) and 4 (21%) cases, respectively. In the vast majority of cases (n = 17), RAKT was performed in the right

The graft was introduced using the GelPOINT® device (or the Alexis® port) in 14 (73.7%) cases through a Pfannenstiel incision, while in 5 (26.3%) through a

They recorded one case of intraoperative complication (intraoperative bleeding not requiring transfusion) that required positioning of an additional 5 mm port to increase exposure and help aspiration. Three patients (16%) suffered a high-grade (Clavien-Dindo grade 3) complication (transplant renal artery stenosis requiring percutaneous angioplasty in one patient; percutaneous placement of a nephrostomy tube for hydronephrosis in one patient and transplant renal artery thrombosis

A progressive improvement of renal function was recorded at all time points during the postoperative period. Median eGFR at hospital discharge (median

Overall, five (26%) patients required dialysis during the first postoperative week. Of these, one patient due to primary nonfunction after RAKT from an uncontrolled DCD donor; one patient due to graft nephrectomy due to arterial thrombosis; one patient for suspected acute rejection treated with intravenous

At a median follow-up of 15 months, all patients are alive, and two patients are

We developed the first structured program of RAKT from deceased donors

From a logistical perspective, RAKT from deceased donors poses specific challenges, which require a comprehensive, multidisciplinary effort to redesign the management strategy of the institution's transplantation pathway. In this view, a highly trained and committed surgical team, as well as the opportunity of a dedicated flexible robotic operating room, are key elements for the success of the

Despite being preliminary, our experience confirms the feasibility of RAKT in this donation setting in centers with a solid background in open KT and robotic

The perioperative and functional data in our preliminary series are promising but warrant further investigation. In particular, larger studies with longer followup are needed to confirm the safety of RAKT from deceased donors (especially DCD donors), to evaluate the impact of learning curve on patient outcomes, and to

(IQR 28.9–59.4), while median eGFR at a

(IQR 40.0–80.4).

Interestingly, thanks to the structured RAKT program developed at the University of Florence, the proportion of RAKT increased over time in the last 3 years, being 18.3%, 26.4%, and 24% of all KT in 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively. Similarly, the proportion of RAKT from deceased donors increased over time, being 11.1% in 2017, 19.6% in 2018, and 14.3% in 2019 of all KT from deceased donors. The University of Florence group very recently published their results on their first 17 RAKTs from deceased donors [18]. They now performed 19 cases, all suc-

#### *Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90276*

*Medical Robotics - New Achievements*

the graft vein shape and length.

the renal and iliac vessels.

then, a knot is tied, and the anterior plate is completed with a second running suture with the same thread from 6 to 12 o'clock position (**Figure 11**). Tying the knot at 6 o'clock position after completion of the posterior plate may be key to reduce the tension on the anterior plate of the anastomosis, tailoring it according to

Similarly, the technique for arterial anastomosis follows the principles of the Vattikuti-Medanta technique [13, 16] with key technical nuances in case of deceased donors. First, the arteriotomy is achieved using standard cold scissors (rather than using the aortic punch). Second, due to the increased risk of atherosclerotic plaques and/or calcifications at the level of the external iliac arteries, the arterial anastomosis is performed using two different threads (**Figure 12**). First, the posterior plate of the anastomosis is closed using a running suture from 12 to 6 o'clock position, without tying a knot at 6 o'clock position. Then, the anterior plate is closed in a similar fashion with a running suture from 12 to 6 o'clock position using a second thread. Finally, the two free ends of the threads are tied together at 6 o'clock position, after checking the integrity of the anastomosis. This technique allows to tailor the tension of the anastomosis according to the stiffness and characteristics of both

Third, the arterial anastomosis during RAKT from deceased donors is per-

A specific challenge in case of RAKT from deceased donors is represented by the management of the Carrel's patch for arterial anastomosis. At the beginning of our robotic program for deceased donor RAKT [18], after careful bench surgery showing no significant atherosclerotic plaques at the level of the renal artery ostium, we performed the anastomosis using the Carrel's patch (**Figure 12**). However, with increasing experience the anastomosis is increasingly being performed *without* the Carrel's patch. While in few cases at the beginning of the program, the surgeon had to remove the patch due to the presence of significant atherosclerotic plaques, in the following cases, the Carrel's patch was removed intentionally during bench surgery, and the anastomosis was performed mirroring the technique adopted for living donor RAKT. From a technical point of view, and thanks to the robotic platform, removing the Carrel's patch may provide significant advantages for the surgeon. These include (a) the opportunity to perform a shorter arteriotomy; (b) a more anatomic anastomosis, thanks to the similar caliber of the graft renal artery and external iliac artery; and (c) the reduced risk of atherosclerotic plaques at the level

Finally, a specific technical modification proposed by our group for RAKT from

deceased donors is represented by the use of intraoperative indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence videography (IFV) to assess graft and ureteral reperfusion [33, 34]. The tips and tricks for the use of this technique during RAKT from deceased donors are discussed in the previous publications [18, 33, 34]. In brief, a bolus of 0.3 mg/kg of ICG dissolved in 5% glucose (2 mg/ml) is administered intravenously after completion of vascular anastomoses to allow performance of a real-time qualitative and potentially quantitative assessment of graft and ureteral fluorescence signal [34]. Forty seconds after ICG injection, the camera is switched to reveal fluorescence at the level of vascular anastomoses and the renal parenchyma and ureter to check for their reperfusion, allowing to adapt the ureteral length according to the fluorescence signal to reduce the chance of postoperative ureteral strictures.

Overall, 32 RAKTs have been performed at the University of Florence from

formed using a slightly thicker thread (Gore-Tex 5/0 instead of 6/0).

of the graft renal artery (as compared to Carrel's aortic patch).

**3.5 RAKT from deceased donors: preliminary results**

January 2017 (22.4% of all KT in this period).

**138**

The first RAKT from a deceased donor was performed in August 2017. Of the 32 RAKT performed so far, 19 (59.4%) were from deceased donors (n = 5 [26%] from DCD donors; n = 14 [74%] from DBD donors).

Interestingly, thanks to the structured RAKT program developed at the University of Florence, the proportion of RAKT increased over time in the last 3 years, being 18.3%, 26.4%, and 24% of all KT in 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively. Similarly, the proportion of RAKT from deceased donors increased over time, being 11.1% in 2017, 19.6% in 2018, and 14.3% in 2019 of all KT from deceased donors.

The University of Florence group very recently published their results on their first 17 RAKTs from deceased donors [18]. They now performed 19 cases, all successfully completed without need of open conversion.

The da Vinci Si and Xi robotic platform was used in 15 (79%) and 4 (21%) cases, respectively. In the vast majority of cases (n = 17), RAKT was performed in the right iliac fossa.

The graft was introduced using the GelPOINT® device (or the Alexis® port) in 14 (73.7%) cases through a Pfannenstiel incision, while in 5 (26.3%) through a periumbilical incision.

They recorded one case of intraoperative complication (intraoperative bleeding not requiring transfusion) that required positioning of an additional 5 mm port to increase exposure and help aspiration. Three patients (16%) suffered a high-grade (Clavien-Dindo grade 3) complication (transplant renal artery stenosis requiring percutaneous angioplasty in one patient; percutaneous placement of a nephrostomy tube for hydronephrosis in one patient and transplant renal artery thrombosis requiring graft nephrectomy).

A progressive improvement of renal function was recorded at all time points during the postoperative period. Median eGFR at hospital discharge (median 12 days post-op) was 47.2 ml/min/1.73m2 (IQR 28.9–59.4), while median eGFR at a median follow-up of 15 months was 58.6 ml/min/1.73m2 (IQR 40.0–80.4).

Overall, five (26%) patients required dialysis during the first postoperative week. Of these, one patient due to primary nonfunction after RAKT from an uncontrolled DCD donor; one patient due to graft nephrectomy due to arterial thrombosis; one patient for suspected acute rejection treated with intravenous corticosteroids; and two patients for DGF.

At a median follow-up of 15 months, all patients are alive, and two patients are still on dialysis.

#### **3.6 RAKT from deceased donors: future perspectives**

We developed the first structured program of RAKT from deceased donors worldwide.

Despite being preliminary, our experience confirms the feasibility of RAKT in this donation setting in centers with a solid background in open KT and robotic surgery and after proper standardized modular training.

From a logistical perspective, RAKT from deceased donors poses specific challenges, which require a comprehensive, multidisciplinary effort to redesign the management strategy of the institution's transplantation pathway. In this view, a highly trained and committed surgical team, as well as the opportunity of a dedicated flexible robotic operating room, are key elements for the success of the program.

The perioperative and functional data in our preliminary series are promising but warrant further investigation. In particular, larger studies with longer followup are needed to confirm the safety of RAKT from deceased donors (especially DCD donors), to evaluate the impact of learning curve on patient outcomes, and to identify the predictors of adverse perioperative events (i.e., major surgical complications, PNF and DGF) to refine patient selection.

Yet, extending the number of robotic transplantations performed by centers experienced in robotic surgery using grafts from deceased donors would be key to increase the pool of patients who may benefit from minimally invasive surgery. Notably, this is a critical step toward the definition of evidence-based indications for RAKT in this clinical scenario also from a Guideline's perspective [39].

We entirely share Dr. Alcaraz and colleagues' perspective that "although major improvements in outcomes for transplant patients are likely to come from the field of immunology, small, measurable improvements may yet be possible via technical advances" [40]. As such, we believe RAKT, which is likely to be increasingly performed by referral transplant centers worldwide, may provide unique opportunities for both patients and surgeons, allowing to improve the precision and reduce the morbidity of this procedure. To move the field forward, implementing RAKT programs from deceased donors is the most compelling clinical unmet need for the transplant and urological community.

#### **4. Robot-assisted kidney autotransplantation (RAKAT)**

#### **4.1 History and background**

In 1902 Ullmann [41] and Carrel [42] experimentally achieved the first successful animal kidney autotransplantation (KAT), moving the kidney of a dog from its lumbar fossa to its neck, in this way laying the foundations for future kidney (auto) transplantation. In 1956, the Brazilian Campos Freire [43] attempted KAT for the first time on a man with a renal artery aneurysm, although an early thrombosis forced him to perform a nephrectomy. In 1961, Shackman and Dempster repeated this in a case of unilateral renal artery stenosis but with unsatisfactory results [44]. It was not until 1963 when JD Hardy et al. achieved the first successful KAT in human in a case of high ureteral stricture after a large aortic aneurysm repair [45]. McLaughlin et al. demonstrated its utility in the management of complex renal lesions. Following these pioneering surgeries, KAT was adopted as a method to perform renal artery angioplasty in treating hypertension caused by severe renal artery stenoses. In these vascular cases, the ureter was usually not transected; the vascular pedicle is reconstructed in or close to the abdominal incision with subsequent vascular reimplantation on the iliac vessels, making this actually a renal transposition. Only when the indication concerns primary ureteral pathology or when the kidney needs complex surgery on the bench table (and both the vascular pedicle and the ureter are sectioned and subsequently reimplanted), the term KAT is correct. Nowadays, most renovascular problems are treated with endovascular methods, and the indications for KAT have been shifted more toward managing complex ureteral strictures or malignant pathologies for which endoluminal or in vivo repair is impossible or contraindicated. Less frequent indications include loin pain hematuria syndrome, retroperitoneal fibrosis, and metabolic stone disease [46].

KAT is an important surgical last resort technique in order to spare the kidney in select cases. It allows ex vivo management of complex renal or ureteral pathology, which would not be treatable with conventional techniques, without resulting in important kidney function loss. For this purpose, the harvested kidney is cooled on ice slush and flushed with an ice-cold preservation solution during bench surgery, thus reducing tissue oxygen requirement.

**141**

*Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90276*

function [48].

Traditionally, KAT has been performed through a large midline laparotomy, a large paramedian extraperitoneal incision or the combination of a lumbotomy for the nephrectomy phase with a lower abdominal incision for the transplantation phase; thus being a very invasive procedure, and, albeit having a low mortality rate (1.3%), postoperative morbidity may be as high as 46.2%. Due to the historic invasiveness of the procedure, and the unfamiliarity of many urologists with the field of KT, KAT has never gained much popularity and often these kidneys were sacrificed. However, since the introduction of laparoscopy in urology, attempts have been made to reduce the morbidity of open KAT. Fabrizio et al. [47] described in 2000 the first laparoscopic nephrectomy for KAT; however, the patient still required a periumbilical incision for extraction of the graft and a pelvic incision for the transplantation [47]. Today, the most accepted approach is to perform laparoscopic nephrectomy, via a three-port transperitoneal access, and open KAT, using the classical Gibson incision for both extraction and introduction of the graft, resulting in possible low complication rate and excellent long-term autograft

In recent years, due to the success of RAKT, interest is rising to reevaluate KAT as an ultimate nephron-sparing option in complex cases. In 2014, Gordon et al. published the first case of robot-assisted kidney autotransplantation (RAKAT) to treat extensive ureteral loss after complicated ureterorenoscopy for ureterolithiasis [49]. They used a completely intracorporeal technique, establishing in vivo hypothermic renal perfusion by continuous renal artery irrigation. The robot was redocked between nephrectomy and transplantation phase, and the table was repositioned rather than the patient. The complete intracorporeal technique was successfully repeated by Lee et al. [50] in 2015. Despite these promising results, the totally intracorporeal technique is not suitable in patients where ex vivo bench repair is required (e.g., multiple vessel grafts, complex oncological cases, lithiasis treatment) or where the surgeon would prefer to transplant the autograft in the contralateral iliac fossa (e.g., disturbed pelvic vascular anatomy or excessive fibrosis). In the same period, Sood et al. theoretically described a technique for RAKAT using extracorporeal tabletop graft reconstruction, using a GelPOINT device, in order to broaden indications of RAKAT [51]. In 2017, Araki et al. [52] published a case using this extracorporeal RAKAT technique in a patient with proximal ureteral stenosis. Also in 2017, Decaestecker et al. [53] performed the first extracorporeal RAKAT in Europe and to date have the largest series of RAKAT worldwide. This European

Decaestecker et al. published the largest series of RAKAT worldwide, all for non-oncological cases [53]. Their technique is based on the experience within the ERUS-RAKT working group, as described by Breda et al. [16], and on the theoretical report by Sood et al. [51]. We will describe the extracorporeal bench work technique and the totally intracorporeal technique with the da Vinci Si® and Xi®

**Figures 13** and **14** describe the patient and trocar positioning for Si and Xi, right

series also adopted a totally intracorporeal technique.

*4.2.1 Extracorporeal bench work technique (video)*

or left, during nephrectomy and transplantation phase.

*4.2.1.1 Trocar and patient position*

**4.2 Operative technique**

robotic platform.

#### *Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90276*

*Medical Robotics - New Achievements*

transplant and urological community.

**4.1 History and background**

cations, PNF and DGF) to refine patient selection.

identify the predictors of adverse perioperative events (i.e., major surgical compli-

Yet, extending the number of robotic transplantations performed by centers experienced in robotic surgery using grafts from deceased donors would be key to increase the pool of patients who may benefit from minimally invasive surgery. Notably, this is a critical step toward the definition of evidence-based indications

We entirely share Dr. Alcaraz and colleagues' perspective that "although major improvements in outcomes for transplant patients are likely to come from the field of immunology, small, measurable improvements may yet be possible via technical advances" [40]. As such, we believe RAKT, which is likely to be increasingly performed by referral transplant centers worldwide, may provide unique opportunities for both patients and surgeons, allowing to improve the precision and reduce the morbidity of this procedure. To move the field forward, implementing RAKT programs from deceased donors is the most compelling clinical unmet need for the

In 1902 Ullmann [41] and Carrel [42] experimentally achieved the first successful animal kidney autotransplantation (KAT), moving the kidney of a dog from its lumbar fossa to its neck, in this way laying the foundations for future kidney (auto) transplantation. In 1956, the Brazilian Campos Freire [43] attempted KAT for the first time on a man with a renal artery aneurysm, although an early thrombosis forced him to perform a nephrectomy. In 1961, Shackman and Dempster repeated this in a case of unilateral renal artery stenosis but with unsatisfactory results [44]. It was not until 1963 when JD Hardy et al. achieved the first successful KAT in human in a case of high ureteral stricture after a large aortic aneurysm repair [45]. McLaughlin et al. demonstrated its utility in the management of complex renal lesions. Following these pioneering surgeries, KAT was adopted as a method to perform renal artery angioplasty in treating hypertension caused by severe renal artery stenoses. In these vascular cases, the ureter was usually not transected; the vascular pedicle is reconstructed in or close to the abdominal incision with subsequent vascular reimplantation on the iliac vessels, making this actually a renal transposition. Only when the indication concerns primary ureteral pathology or when the kidney needs complex surgery on the bench table (and both the vascular pedicle and the ureter are sectioned and subsequently reimplanted), the term KAT is correct. Nowadays, most renovascular problems are treated with endovascular methods, and the indications for KAT have been shifted more toward managing complex ureteral strictures or malignant pathologies for which endoluminal or in vivo repair is impossible or contraindicated. Less frequent indications include loin pain hematuria syndrome, retroperitoneal fibrosis, and metabolic stone

KAT is an important surgical last resort technique in order to spare the kidney in select cases. It allows ex vivo management of complex renal or ureteral pathology, which would not be treatable with conventional techniques, without resulting in important kidney function loss. For this purpose, the harvested kidney is cooled on ice slush and flushed with an ice-cold preservation solution during bench surgery,

for RAKT in this clinical scenario also from a Guideline's perspective [39].

**4. Robot-assisted kidney autotransplantation (RAKAT)**

**140**

disease [46].

thus reducing tissue oxygen requirement.

Traditionally, KAT has been performed through a large midline laparotomy, a large paramedian extraperitoneal incision or the combination of a lumbotomy for the nephrectomy phase with a lower abdominal incision for the transplantation phase; thus being a very invasive procedure, and, albeit having a low mortality rate (1.3%), postoperative morbidity may be as high as 46.2%. Due to the historic invasiveness of the procedure, and the unfamiliarity of many urologists with the field of KT, KAT has never gained much popularity and often these kidneys were sacrificed. However, since the introduction of laparoscopy in urology, attempts have been made to reduce the morbidity of open KAT. Fabrizio et al. [47] described in 2000 the first laparoscopic nephrectomy for KAT; however, the patient still required a periumbilical incision for extraction of the graft and a pelvic incision for the transplantation [47]. Today, the most accepted approach is to perform laparoscopic nephrectomy, via a three-port transperitoneal access, and open KAT, using the classical Gibson incision for both extraction and introduction of the graft, resulting in possible low complication rate and excellent long-term autograft function [48].

In recent years, due to the success of RAKT, interest is rising to reevaluate KAT as an ultimate nephron-sparing option in complex cases. In 2014, Gordon et al. published the first case of robot-assisted kidney autotransplantation (RAKAT) to treat extensive ureteral loss after complicated ureterorenoscopy for ureterolithiasis [49]. They used a completely intracorporeal technique, establishing in vivo hypothermic renal perfusion by continuous renal artery irrigation. The robot was redocked between nephrectomy and transplantation phase, and the table was repositioned rather than the patient. The complete intracorporeal technique was successfully repeated by Lee et al. [50] in 2015. Despite these promising results, the totally intracorporeal technique is not suitable in patients where ex vivo bench repair is required (e.g., multiple vessel grafts, complex oncological cases, lithiasis treatment) or where the surgeon would prefer to transplant the autograft in the contralateral iliac fossa (e.g., disturbed pelvic vascular anatomy or excessive fibrosis). In the same period, Sood et al. theoretically described a technique for RAKAT using extracorporeal tabletop graft reconstruction, using a GelPOINT device, in order to broaden indications of RAKAT [51]. In 2017, Araki et al. [52] published a case using this extracorporeal RAKAT technique in a patient with proximal ureteral stenosis. Also in 2017, Decaestecker et al. [53] performed the first extracorporeal RAKAT in Europe and to date have the largest series of RAKAT worldwide. This European series also adopted a totally intracorporeal technique.

#### **4.2 Operative technique**

Decaestecker et al. published the largest series of RAKAT worldwide, all for non-oncological cases [53]. Their technique is based on the experience within the ERUS-RAKT working group, as described by Breda et al. [16], and on the theoretical report by Sood et al. [51]. We will describe the extracorporeal bench work technique and the totally intracorporeal technique with the da Vinci Si® and Xi® robotic platform.

#### *4.2.1 Extracorporeal bench work technique (video)*

#### *4.2.1.1 Trocar and patient position*

**Figures 13** and **14** describe the patient and trocar positioning for Si and Xi, right or left, during nephrectomy and transplantation phase.

#### **Figure 13.**

*Trocar and patient positioning for extracorporeal RAKAT using Si. Nephrectomy phase: patient in lateral decubitus; GelPOINT® through a 6 cm vertical peri-umbilical incision containing camera and assistant trocar; three 8 mm robot trocars in hemiabdomen, one subcostal and 2 in the iliac fossa. Transplantation phase: patient repositioned in lithotomy position, legs in Allen stirrups, table in 20–30° Trendelenburg; three 8 mm robotic trocars in the lower abdomen, reusing the 2 former iliac fossa trocar sites. Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum realized with the AirSeal®System.*

#### **Figure 14.**

*Trocar and patient positioning for extracorporeal RAKAT using Xi. Nephrectomy phase: patient in lateral decubitus; GelPOINT® through a 6 cm vertical peri-umbilical incision containing robot and assistant trocar; three 8 mm robot trocars in hemiabdomen on a slightly oblique line, 2 subcostal and 1 in the iliac fossa. Transplantation phase: patient repositioned in lithotomy position, table in 20–30° Trendelenburg; three 8 mm robotic trocars in the lower abdomen, reusing 1 former iliac fossa trocar site. Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum realised with the AirSeal®System.*

#### *4.2.1.2 "Donor" nephrectomy*

A "donor" nephrectomy is performed with the patient in the lateral decubitus position, maximizing the renal vessel length and transecting the ureter just

**143**

*Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90276*

through the GelPOINT®.

*4.2.1.3 Bench work*

hilum (**Figure 15**).

*4.2.1.4 Transplantation phase*

*opening for the structures.*

**Figure 15.**

by previous surgery and/or radiotherapy.

proximal of the strictured segment or at the level of the crossing with the iliac vessels. After administering 2500–5000 units of heparin intravenously according to the weight of the patient, the renal vessels are transected after securing the vessels with either a laparoscopic/robotic vascular stapler or double clipping the vessels with Click'aV plus® clips (Grena, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Europe), followed by a transfixing ligation of the clipped vascular stump with Prolene® 5/0 (Ethicon Inc., Johnson & Johnson Corp, Cincinnati, OH, USA) to prevent clip slipping. The latter is done robotically after the kidney is exteriorized by the table-side assistant

Upon retrieval, the graft is immediately perfused on the bench with 4° Celsius preservation solution (Institut Georges Lopez-1®). If necessary, bench vascular reconstruction can be performed for duplicated renal arteries (end-toside reconstruction of the lower pole to main artery or pantaloon reconstruction of two central arteries). During cold storage, tabletop flexible ureterorenoscopy or nephroscopy can be performed to extract nephro- or ureterolithiasis. The kidney is wrapped in an ice gauze jacket with a central hole exposing the renal

During cold storage, the robot is undocked, the incisions are temporarily closed,

and the patient is repositioned in lithotomy position (Si/X) or dorsal decubitus (Xi). For the transplantation phase, the robot is redocked, and RAKT is performed following the Vattikuti-Medanta technique as previously described and adopted by the ERUS-RAKT group. With the extracorporeal technique, the kidney is usually transplanted to the contralateral iliac fossa unless the proximal ureter of the graft is absent or very short and urges a ureteropyelostomy (native distal ureter to transplant pyelum) or uretero-ureterostomy (native distal ureter to transplant ureter). The iliac vessels can be very hard to dissect due to excessive fibrosis caused

*Bench work in extracorporeal RAKAT technique. (A) End-to-side anastomosis of lower pole artery on main renal artery. (B) Extraction of nephrolithiasis. (C) Nephroscopy. (D) Extraction of lithiasis from calyceal diverticulum and closing diverticulum infundibulum. (E) Wrapping of the kidney in ice gauze jacket, leaving* 

#### *Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90276*

proximal of the strictured segment or at the level of the crossing with the iliac vessels. After administering 2500–5000 units of heparin intravenously according to the weight of the patient, the renal vessels are transected after securing the vessels with either a laparoscopic/robotic vascular stapler or double clipping the vessels with Click'aV plus® clips (Grena, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Europe), followed by a transfixing ligation of the clipped vascular stump with Prolene® 5/0 (Ethicon Inc., Johnson & Johnson Corp, Cincinnati, OH, USA) to prevent clip slipping. The latter is done robotically after the kidney is exteriorized by the table-side assistant through the GelPOINT®.

#### *4.2.1.3 Bench work*

*Medical Robotics - New Achievements*

*pneumoperitoneum realized with the AirSeal®System.*

**142**

**Figure 14.**

**Figure 13.**

*realised with the AirSeal®System.*

*4.2.1.2 "Donor" nephrectomy*

*Trocar and patient positioning for extracorporeal RAKAT using Xi. Nephrectomy phase: patient in lateral decubitus; GelPOINT® through a 6 cm vertical peri-umbilical incision containing robot and assistant trocar; three 8 mm robot trocars in hemiabdomen on a slightly oblique line, 2 subcostal and 1 in the iliac fossa. Transplantation phase: patient repositioned in lithotomy position, table in 20–30° Trendelenburg; three 8 mm robotic trocars in the lower abdomen, reusing 1 former iliac fossa trocar site. Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum* 

*Trocar and patient positioning for extracorporeal RAKAT using Si. Nephrectomy phase: patient in lateral decubitus; GelPOINT® through a 6 cm vertical peri-umbilical incision containing camera and assistant trocar; three 8 mm robot trocars in hemiabdomen, one subcostal and 2 in the iliac fossa. Transplantation phase: patient repositioned in lithotomy position, legs in Allen stirrups, table in 20–30° Trendelenburg; three 8 mm robotic trocars in the lower abdomen, reusing the 2 former iliac fossa trocar sites. Low-pressure* 

A "donor" nephrectomy is performed with the patient in the lateral decubitus position, maximizing the renal vessel length and transecting the ureter just

Upon retrieval, the graft is immediately perfused on the bench with 4° Celsius preservation solution (Institut Georges Lopez-1®). If necessary, bench vascular reconstruction can be performed for duplicated renal arteries (end-toside reconstruction of the lower pole to main artery or pantaloon reconstruction of two central arteries). During cold storage, tabletop flexible ureterorenoscopy or nephroscopy can be performed to extract nephro- or ureterolithiasis. The kidney is wrapped in an ice gauze jacket with a central hole exposing the renal hilum (**Figure 15**).

#### **Figure 15.**

*Bench work in extracorporeal RAKAT technique. (A) End-to-side anastomosis of lower pole artery on main renal artery. (B) Extraction of nephrolithiasis. (C) Nephroscopy. (D) Extraction of lithiasis from calyceal diverticulum and closing diverticulum infundibulum. (E) Wrapping of the kidney in ice gauze jacket, leaving opening for the structures.*

#### *4.2.1.4 Transplantation phase*

During cold storage, the robot is undocked, the incisions are temporarily closed, and the patient is repositioned in lithotomy position (Si/X) or dorsal decubitus (Xi). For the transplantation phase, the robot is redocked, and RAKT is performed following the Vattikuti-Medanta technique as previously described and adopted by the ERUS-RAKT group. With the extracorporeal technique, the kidney is usually transplanted to the contralateral iliac fossa unless the proximal ureter of the graft is absent or very short and urges a ureteropyelostomy (native distal ureter to transplant pyelum) or uretero-ureterostomy (native distal ureter to transplant ureter). The iliac vessels can be very hard to dissect due to excessive fibrosis caused by previous surgery and/or radiotherapy.

#### *4.2.2 Totally intracorporeal technique*

#### *4.2.2.1 Selection of patients*

The totally intracorporeal technique is not suitable in patients where ex vivo bench repair is required (e.g., multiple vessel grafts, complex oncological cases, lithiasis treatment) and might be less optimal in cases where the surgeon would prefer to transplant the autograft in the contralateral iliac fossa (e.g., disturbed pelvic vascular anatomy or excessive fibrosis).

#### *4.2.2.2 Trocar and patient position*

**Figures 16** and **17** describe the patient and trocar positioning for Si and Xi, right or left, during nephrectomy and transplantation phase. Note that the GelPOINT® device is not used and as much trocars as possible are reused, although some need to be exchanged for each other. For the transplantation phase, the patient is positioned on the PinkPad® (Kebomed, Apeldoorn, the Netherlands, Europe) in a modified lateral flank position using inflatable pressure bags. Together with maximal side tilting of the table (15°), the patient is in a 65° flank position which makes nephrectomy feasible. After nephrectomy and intracorporeal flushing, the robot needs to be undocked, and the table is repositioned rather than the patient (from maximal side tilt to contralateral maximal side tilt, partially) deflating the pressure bags to bring the patient more or less horizontal and adding 20–30° of Trendelenburg). Using the Si/X system, the robot needs to

#### **Figure 16.**

*Trocar and patient positioning for RAKAT intracorporeal technique Si. No use of GelPOINT® device. Nephrectomy phase: patient positioned in lateral decubitus; camera trocar supra-umbilical, three 8 mm robot trocars in hemiabdomen, AirSeal trocar as assistant trocar infra-umbilical. Transplantation phase: robot undocked, table repositioned rather than the patient, and robot redocked (side-docking next to left leg); three 8 mm robotic trocars in the lower abdomen, reusing 1 former caudal robot trocar site and AirSeal trocar site; AirSeal in flank position reusing former robot trocar site; assistant trocar subcostal reusing former robot trocar site.*

**145**

these challenging cases.

**Figure 17.**

*4.2.2.3 "Donor" nephrectomy*

*Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90276*

be repositioned from flank-docking tot side-docking; using the Xi system, only the boom needs to be rotated 90° before redocking. In case of expected pelvic fibrosis, it is wise to prepare the iliac vessels before clamping the renal hilum in order to reduce intracorporeal "cold" ischemia time as well as the amount of intracorporeal cold fluid that could potentially lower central body temperature. This means that three phases with two repositions are necessary. The Xi system with easy docking and repositioning of the boom and integrated table motion is a real advantage for

*Trocar and patient positioning for RAKAT intracorporeal technique Xi. No use of GelPOINT® device. Nephrectomy phase: patient positioned in lateral decubitus; camera trocar supra-umbilical, three 8 mm robot trocars in hemiabdomen, AirSeal trocar as assistant trocar infra-umbilical. Transplantation phase: robot undocked, table repositioned rather than the patient, and robot redocked (side-docking next to left leg); three 8 mm robotic trocars in the lower abdomen, reusing 1 former caudal robot trocar site and AirSeal trocar site; AirSeal in flank position reusing former robot trocar site; assistant trocar subcostal reusing former robot trocar site.*

During nephrectomy, more fat is left on the lower pole of the kidney in order to be able to manipulate the kidney intracorporeally. Care should also be taken to skeletonize the renal vessels and gain adequate length as would normally be performed on the bench. After clamping the renal vessels, they are not transected, but incised to introduce a 5–7 Fr Fogarty catheter with open tip to flush the kidney intracorporeal with 4°C physiologic NaCL solution until the effluent is clear. Note that any solution containing potassium should not be used in order to prevent hyperkalemia and possible arrhythmias by peritoneal reabsorption. After flushing, the renal vessels are transected, and the Fogarty is blocked in the renal artery lumen with inflating the balloon with 0.5–1 cc. The kidney is now continuously flushed at a low flow rate with the intention of intravascular cooling but preventing lowering body temperature by excessive flushing. Effective flushing can be confirmed continuously by looking for renal vein effluent. The kidney is repositioned from

flank to pelvis, and the robot is redocked for table repositioning.

#### *Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90276*

#### **Figure 17.**

*Medical Robotics - New Achievements*

*4.2.2.1 Selection of patients*

*4.2.2 Totally intracorporeal technique*

vascular anatomy or excessive fibrosis).

*4.2.2.2 Trocar and patient position*

The totally intracorporeal technique is not suitable in patients where ex vivo bench repair is required (e.g., multiple vessel grafts, complex oncological cases, lithiasis treatment) and might be less optimal in cases where the surgeon would prefer to transplant the autograft in the contralateral iliac fossa (e.g., disturbed pelvic

**Figures 16** and **17** describe the patient and trocar positioning for Si and Xi, right or left, during nephrectomy and transplantation phase. Note that the GelPOINT® device is not used and as much trocars as possible are reused, although some need to be exchanged for each other. For the transplantation phase, the patient is positioned on the PinkPad® (Kebomed, Apeldoorn, the Netherlands, Europe) in a modified lateral flank position using inflatable pressure bags. Together with maximal side tilting of the table (15°), the patient is in a 65° flank position which makes nephrectomy feasible. After nephrectomy and intracorporeal flushing, the robot needs to be undocked, and the table is repositioned rather than the patient (from maximal side tilt to contralateral maximal side tilt, partially) deflating the pressure bags to bring the patient more or less horizontal and adding 20–30° of Trendelenburg). Using the Si/X system, the robot needs to

*Trocar and patient positioning for RAKAT intracorporeal technique Si. No use of GelPOINT® device. Nephrectomy phase: patient positioned in lateral decubitus; camera trocar supra-umbilical, three 8 mm robot trocars in hemiabdomen, AirSeal trocar as assistant trocar infra-umbilical. Transplantation phase: robot undocked, table repositioned rather than the patient, and robot redocked (side-docking next to left leg); three 8 mm robotic trocars in the lower abdomen, reusing 1 former caudal robot trocar site and AirSeal trocar site; AirSeal in flank position reusing former robot trocar site; assistant trocar subcostal reusing former robot trocar site.*

**144**

**Figure 16.**

*Trocar and patient positioning for RAKAT intracorporeal technique Xi. No use of GelPOINT® device. Nephrectomy phase: patient positioned in lateral decubitus; camera trocar supra-umbilical, three 8 mm robot trocars in hemiabdomen, AirSeal trocar as assistant trocar infra-umbilical. Transplantation phase: robot undocked, table repositioned rather than the patient, and robot redocked (side-docking next to left leg); three 8 mm robotic trocars in the lower abdomen, reusing 1 former caudal robot trocar site and AirSeal trocar site; AirSeal in flank position reusing former robot trocar site; assistant trocar subcostal reusing former robot trocar site.*

be repositioned from flank-docking tot side-docking; using the Xi system, only the boom needs to be rotated 90° before redocking. In case of expected pelvic fibrosis, it is wise to prepare the iliac vessels before clamping the renal hilum in order to reduce intracorporeal "cold" ischemia time as well as the amount of intracorporeal cold fluid that could potentially lower central body temperature. This means that three phases with two repositions are necessary. The Xi system with easy docking and repositioning of the boom and integrated table motion is a real advantage for these challenging cases.

#### *4.2.2.3 "Donor" nephrectomy*

During nephrectomy, more fat is left on the lower pole of the kidney in order to be able to manipulate the kidney intracorporeally. Care should also be taken to skeletonize the renal vessels and gain adequate length as would normally be performed on the bench. After clamping the renal vessels, they are not transected, but incised to introduce a 5–7 Fr Fogarty catheter with open tip to flush the kidney intracorporeal with 4°C physiologic NaCL solution until the effluent is clear. Note that any solution containing potassium should not be used in order to prevent hyperkalemia and possible arrhythmias by peritoneal reabsorption. After flushing, the renal vessels are transected, and the Fogarty is blocked in the renal artery lumen with inflating the balloon with 0.5–1 cc. The kidney is now continuously flushed at a low flow rate with the intention of intravascular cooling but preventing lowering body temperature by excessive flushing. Effective flushing can be confirmed continuously by looking for renal vein effluent. The kidney is repositioned from flank to pelvis, and the robot is redocked for table repositioning.

#### *4.2.2.4 Transplantation phase*

The venous anastomosis is performed in the same way as for the extracorporeal technique. Flushing (and graft cooling) through the renal artery is continued until the venous anastomosis is complete. The Fogarty is removed, and the arterial anastomosis is performed, resulting in only 10––15 min of rewarming time. With the intracorporeal technique, the kidney is usually transplanted to the ipsilateral iliac fossa.

#### *4.2.3 Results*

Decaestecker et al. published their initial experience on 7 patients [53], updated their results of the first 10 cases at EAU 2019 congress [54], and now performed 15 cases, making this the largest reported series worldwide. Thirteen cases were performed extracorporeally and two intracorporeally. Ureteral stricture disease was the main indication (12/15). All 15 RAKATs were successfully completed without intraoperative complications needing open conversion. Compared to pre-op, there was a significant decrease in mean serum creatinine (p = 0.027) and a nonsignificant increase of mean overall and autotransplant GFR estimated by nuclear DMSA and Cr-EDTA scans at 3 months post-op. All patients were free from indwelling catheters or nephrostomy tube, recurrent urinary tract infections, debilitating stent symptoms, flank pain, or macroscopic hematuria at the last follow-up. Short hospital stay and early recovery confirmed the minimal invasiveness of the approach although 3/15 patients experienced a high-grade complication (pulmonary embolism, wound dehiscence, and lower limb compartment syndrome without lasting disability). Of note is that the high-grade complications occurred in former cancer patients that had the combination of multiple surgeries and radiotherapy.

#### **5. Learning curve and training**

The learning curve for RAKT can be relatively short for surgeons experienced in robotic surgery and kidney transplant surgery [25, 26]. It cannot be stressed enough that a high level of robotic experience is recommended before starting this kind of high-stake surgery. Training the technique on dry and wet lab models is mandatory. The structured RAKT course provided at ORSI Academy [32] is recommended as well as an experienced RAKT proctor supporting first cases. In this way a safe introduction of this new technique is possible.

#### **6. Conclusions**

RAKT has been proven to be an advanced application for KT. The technique is now standardized, and surgical data show that RAKT is safe, feasible, and reproducible when performed by surgeons with experience in both robotic and KT surgery. Most experience has been gained with grafts from living donors, but RAKT from deceased donors is feasible taking into account careful selection and optimizing logistics. Finally, RAKAT is an extension of the RAKT technique and is a minimal invasive way to salvage kidneys with complex renal, vascular, or ureteral pathology, which cannot be treated with conventional in situ techniques. Although the ultimate goal could be intracorporeal RAKAT, the extracorporeal technique is more versatile for complex cases. Training and proctoring are key to safely introduce this advanced robotic technique and give the transplant patient population the advantages of a minimal invasive approach for KT.

**147**

*Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90276*

This chapter has been written on behalf of the European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) working group chaired by Alberto Breda. We want to thank all the members and associates of the ERUS-RAKT working group: Antonio Alcaraz, Paolo Fornara, Alberto Breda, Sergio Serni, Volkan Tugcu, Karel Decaestecker, Giampaolo Siena, Nicolas Doumerc, Michael Stöckle, Alessandro Volpe, Graziano Vignolini, Ravi Barod, Angelo Territo, Riccardo Campi, Mireia Musquera, Liesbeth Desender, and

**Acknowledgements**

Francesc Vigués.

**Author details**

Karel Decaestecker1

Giulio Bevilacqua2

Florence, Italy

**Conflict of interest**

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

\*, Angelo Territo2

, Liesbeth Desender1

2 Fundaciò Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Spain

\*Address all correspondence to: karel.decaestecker@uzgent.be

3 Department of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi

4 Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence,

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

1 Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium

Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy

provided the original work is properly cited.

, Riccardo Campi3,4, Benjamin Van Parys1

and Alberto Breda<sup>2</sup>

,

### **Acknowledgements**

*Medical Robotics - New Achievements*

*4.2.2.4 Transplantation phase*

**5. Learning curve and training**

**6. Conclusions**

introduction of this new technique is possible.

advantages of a minimal invasive approach for KT.

*4.2.3 Results*

The venous anastomosis is performed in the same way as for the extracorporeal technique. Flushing (and graft cooling) through the renal artery is continued until the venous anastomosis is complete. The Fogarty is removed, and the arterial anastomosis is performed, resulting in only 10––15 min of rewarming time. With the intracorporeal

Decaestecker et al. published their initial experience on 7 patients [53], updated their results of the first 10 cases at EAU 2019 congress [54], and now performed 15 cases, making this the largest reported series worldwide. Thirteen cases were performed extracorporeally and two intracorporeally. Ureteral stricture disease was the main indication (12/15). All 15 RAKATs were successfully completed without intraoperative complications needing open conversion. Compared to pre-op, there was a significant decrease in mean serum creatinine (p = 0.027) and a nonsignificant increase of mean overall and autotransplant GFR estimated by nuclear DMSA and Cr-EDTA scans at 3 months post-op. All patients were free from indwelling catheters or nephrostomy tube, recurrent urinary tract infections, debilitating stent symptoms, flank pain, or macroscopic hematuria at the last follow-up. Short hospital stay and early recovery confirmed the minimal invasiveness of the approach although 3/15 patients experienced a high-grade complication (pulmonary embolism, wound dehiscence, and lower limb compartment syndrome without lasting disability). Of note is that the high-grade complications occurred in former cancer

technique, the kidney is usually transplanted to the ipsilateral iliac fossa.

patients that had the combination of multiple surgeries and radiotherapy.

The learning curve for RAKT can be relatively short for surgeons experienced in robotic surgery and kidney transplant surgery [25, 26]. It cannot be stressed enough that a high level of robotic experience is recommended before starting this kind of high-stake surgery. Training the technique on dry and wet lab models is mandatory. The structured RAKT course provided at ORSI Academy [32] is recommended as well as an experienced RAKT proctor supporting first cases. In this way a safe

RAKT has been proven to be an advanced application for KT. The technique is now standardized, and surgical data show that RAKT is safe, feasible, and reproducible when performed by surgeons with experience in both robotic and KT surgery. Most experience has been gained with grafts from living donors, but RAKT from deceased donors is feasible taking into account careful selection and optimizing logistics. Finally, RAKAT is an extension of the RAKT technique and is a minimal invasive way to salvage kidneys with complex renal, vascular, or ureteral pathology, which cannot be treated with conventional in situ techniques. Although the ultimate goal could be intracorporeal RAKAT, the extracorporeal technique is more versatile for complex cases. Training and proctoring are key to safely introduce this advanced robotic technique and give the transplant patient population the

**146**

This chapter has been written on behalf of the European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) working group chaired by Alberto Breda. We want to thank all the members and associates of the ERUS-RAKT working group: Antonio Alcaraz, Paolo Fornara, Alberto Breda, Sergio Serni, Volkan Tugcu, Karel Decaestecker, Giampaolo Siena, Nicolas Doumerc, Michael Stöckle, Alessandro Volpe, Graziano Vignolini, Ravi Barod, Angelo Territo, Riccardo Campi, Mireia Musquera, Liesbeth Desender, and Francesc Vigués.

### **Conflict of interest**

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

### **Author details**

Karel Decaestecker1 \*, Angelo Territo2 , Riccardo Campi3,4, Benjamin Van Parys1 , Giulio Bevilacqua<sup>2</sup> , Liesbeth Desender1 and Alberto Breda<sup>2</sup>

1 Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium

2 Fundaciò Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Spain

3 Department of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy

4 Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy

\*Address all correspondence to: karel.decaestecker@uzgent.be

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Collins AJ, Foley RN, Gilbertson DT, Chen SC. United States renal data system public health surveillance of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease. Kidney International. Supplement. 2015;**5**(1):2-7. DOI: 10.1038/kisup.2015.2

[2] Herrell SD, Smith JA. Laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: What are the real advantages? BJU International. 2005;**95**(1):3-4. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05235.x

[3] Territo A, Mottrie A, Abaza R, Rogers C, Menon M, Bhandari M, et al. Robotic kidney transplantation: Current status and future perspectives. Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica. 2017;**69**(1):5-13. DOI: 10.23736/ S0393-2249.16.02856-3

[4] Ratner LE, Ciseck LJ, Moore RG, et al. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation. 1995;**60**:1047-1049

[5] Horgan S, Vanuno D, Benedetti E. Early experience with robotically assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques. 2002;**12**(1):64-70. DOI: 10.1097/00019509-200202000-00011

[6] Hubert J, Renoult E, Mourey E, Frimat L, Cormier L, Kessler M. Complete robotic-assistance during laparoscopic living donor nephrectomies: An evaluation of 38 procedures at a single site. International Journal of Urology. 2007;**14**(11):986-989. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2007.01876.x

[7] Renoult E, Hubert J, Ladrière M, Billaut N, Mourey E, Feuillu B, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic and open live-donor nephrectomy: A comparison of donor morbidity and early renal allograft outcomes. Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation. 2006;**21**(2):472-477. DOI: 10.1093/ndt/ gfi150

[8] Cohen B, Smits JM, Haase B, Persijn G, Vanrenterghem Y, Frei U. Expanding the donor pool to increase renal transplantation. Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation. 2005;**20**(1):34-41. DOI: 10.1093/ndt/ gfh506

[9] Banasik M. Living donor transplantation--the real gift of life. Procurement and the ethical assessment. Annals of Transplantation. 2006;**11**(1):4-6

[10] Bettschart V, Boubaker A, Martinet O, Golshayan D, Wauters JP, Mosimann F. Laparoscopic right nephrectomy for live kidney donation: Functional results. Transplant International. 2003;**16**(6):419-424. DOI: 10.1007/s00147-003-0561-y

[11] Kumar A, Chaturvedi S, Gulia A, Maheshwari R, Dassi V, Desai P. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Comparison of outcomes right versus left. Transplantation Proceedings. 2018;**50**(8):2327-2332. DOI: 10.1016/j. transproceed.2018.03.034

[12] Giulianotti P, Gorodner V, Sbrana F, Tzvetanov I, Jeon H, Bianco F, et al. Robotic transabdominal kidney transplantation in a morbidly obese patient. American Journal of Transplantation. 2010;**10**(6):1478-1482. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2010.03116.x

[13] Menon M, Sood A, Bhandari M, Kher V, Ghosh P, Abaza R, et al. Robotic kidney transplantation with regional hypothermia: A stepby-step description of the vattikuti urology institute-medanta technique (IDEAL phase 2a). European Urology. 2014;**65**(5):991-1000. DOI: 10.1016/j. eururo.2013.12.006

**149**

*Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90276*

[15] Doumerc N, Roumiguié M,

10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.026

[16] Breda A, Territo A, Gausa L, Tuğcu V, Alcaraz A, Musquera M, et al. Robot-assisted kidney transplantation: The European experience [figure presented]. European Urology. 2018;**73**(2):273-281. DOI: 10.1016/j.

[17] Territo A, Gausa L, Alcaraz A,

[18] Vignolini G, Campi R, Sessa F, Greco I, Larti A, Giancane S, et al. Development of a robot-assisted kidney transplantation programme from deceased donors in a referral academic Centre: Technical nuances and preliminary results. BJU International. 2019;**123**(3):474-484. DOI: 10.1111/

[19] Siena G, Campi R, Decaestecker K, Tuğcu V, Sahin S, Alcaraz A, et al. Robot-assisted kidney transplantation with regional hypothermia using grafts with multiple vessels after extracorporeal vascular reconstruction: Results from the European Association of Urology robotic urology section working group. European Urology Focus. 2018;**4**(2):175-184. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.07.022

[20] Spinoit AF, Moreels N, Raes A, Prytula A, De Groote R, Ploumidis A,

Musquera M, Doumerc N, Decaestecker K, et al. European experience of robot-assisted kidney transplantation: Minimum of 1-year follow-up. BJU International. 2018;**122**(2):255-262. DOI: 10.1111/

2016;**34**(3):443-447

eururo.2017.08.028

bju.14247

bju.14588

[14] Breda A, Gausa L, Territo A, et al. Robotic-assisted kidney transplantation: Our first case. World Journal of Urology.

et al. Single-setting robot-assisted kidney transplantation consecutive to single-port laparoscopic nephrectomy in a child and robot-assisted living-related donor nephrectomy: Initial Ghent experience. Journal of Pediatric Urology.

2019;**15**:578-579. DOI: 10.1016/j.

[21] Giacomoni A, Di Sandro S, Lauterio A, Concone G, Buscemi V, Rossetti O, et al. Robotic nephrectomy

for living donation: Surgical technique and literature systematic review. American Journal of Surgery. 2016;**211**(6):1135-1142. DOI: 10.1016/j.

[22] Shahbazov R, Maluf D, Azari F, Hakim D, Martin O, Dicocco P, et al. Laparoscopic versus finger-assisted open donor nephrectomy technique: A possible safe alternative. Experimental and Clinical Transplantation. 2019. DOI:

nephrectomy: A review of evidence for surgical techniques. Transplant International. 2010;**23**(2):121-130. DOI:

10.1111/j.1432-2277.2009.01027.x

[24] Levi Sandri GB, de Werra E, Mascianà G, Guerra F, Spoletini G, Lai Q. The use of robotic surgery in abdominal organ transplantation: A

Transplantation. 2017;**31**(1). DOI:

[25] Rampersad C, Patel P, Koulack J, McGregor T. Back-to-back comparison of mini-open vs. laparoscopic technique for living kidney donation. Canadian Urological Association Journal. 2016;**10**(7-8 August):253-257. DOI:

[26] Menon M, Abaza R, Sood A, Ahlawat R, Ghani KR, Jeong W, et al. Robotic kidney transplantation with regional hypothermia: Evolution of a

literature review. Clinical

10.1111/ctr.12856

10.5489/cuaj.3725

jpurol.2019.08.005

amjsurg.2015.08.019

10.6002/ect.2019.0115

[23] Dols LFC, Kok NFM, Ijzermans JNM. Live donor

Rischmann P, Sallusto F. Totally robotic approach with Transvaginal insertion for kidney transplantation. European Urology. 2015;**68**(6):1103-1104. DOI:

*Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90276*

[14] Breda A, Gausa L, Territo A, et al. Robotic-assisted kidney transplantation: Our first case. World Journal of Urology. 2016;**34**(3):443-447

[15] Doumerc N, Roumiguié M, Rischmann P, Sallusto F. Totally robotic approach with Transvaginal insertion for kidney transplantation. European Urology. 2015;**68**(6):1103-1104. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.026

[16] Breda A, Territo A, Gausa L, Tuğcu V, Alcaraz A, Musquera M, et al. Robot-assisted kidney transplantation: The European experience [figure presented]. European Urology. 2018;**73**(2):273-281. DOI: 10.1016/j. eururo.2017.08.028

[17] Territo A, Gausa L, Alcaraz A, Musquera M, Doumerc N, Decaestecker K, et al. European experience of robot-assisted kidney transplantation: Minimum of 1-year follow-up. BJU International. 2018;**122**(2):255-262. DOI: 10.1111/ bju.14247

[18] Vignolini G, Campi R, Sessa F, Greco I, Larti A, Giancane S, et al. Development of a robot-assisted kidney transplantation programme from deceased donors in a referral academic Centre: Technical nuances and preliminary results. BJU International. 2019;**123**(3):474-484. DOI: 10.1111/ bju.14588

[19] Siena G, Campi R, Decaestecker K, Tuğcu V, Sahin S, Alcaraz A, et al. Robot-assisted kidney transplantation with regional hypothermia using grafts with multiple vessels after extracorporeal vascular reconstruction: Results from the European Association of Urology robotic urology section working group. European Urology Focus. 2018;**4**(2):175-184. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.07.022

[20] Spinoit AF, Moreels N, Raes A, Prytula A, De Groote R, Ploumidis A, et al. Single-setting robot-assisted kidney transplantation consecutive to single-port laparoscopic nephrectomy in a child and robot-assisted living-related donor nephrectomy: Initial Ghent experience. Journal of Pediatric Urology. 2019;**15**:578-579. DOI: 10.1016/j. jpurol.2019.08.005

[21] Giacomoni A, Di Sandro S, Lauterio A, Concone G, Buscemi V, Rossetti O, et al. Robotic nephrectomy for living donation: Surgical technique and literature systematic review. American Journal of Surgery. 2016;**211**(6):1135-1142. DOI: 10.1016/j. amjsurg.2015.08.019

[22] Shahbazov R, Maluf D, Azari F, Hakim D, Martin O, Dicocco P, et al. Laparoscopic versus finger-assisted open donor nephrectomy technique: A possible safe alternative. Experimental and Clinical Transplantation. 2019. DOI: 10.6002/ect.2019.0115

[23] Dols LFC, Kok NFM, Ijzermans JNM. Live donor nephrectomy: A review of evidence for surgical techniques. Transplant International. 2010;**23**(2):121-130. DOI: 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2009.01027.x

[24] Levi Sandri GB, de Werra E, Mascianà G, Guerra F, Spoletini G, Lai Q. The use of robotic surgery in abdominal organ transplantation: A literature review. Clinical Transplantation. 2017;**31**(1). DOI: 10.1111/ctr.12856

[25] Rampersad C, Patel P, Koulack J, McGregor T. Back-to-back comparison of mini-open vs. laparoscopic technique for living kidney donation. Canadian Urological Association Journal. 2016;**10**(7-8 August):253-257. DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.3725

[26] Menon M, Abaza R, Sood A, Ahlawat R, Ghani KR, Jeong W, et al. Robotic kidney transplantation with regional hypothermia: Evolution of a

**148**

*Medical Robotics - New Achievements*

[1] Collins AJ, Foley RN, Gilbertson DT, Chen SC. United States renal data system public health surveillance of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease. Kidney International. Supplement. 2015;**5**(1):2-7. DOI:

2006;**21**(2):472-477. DOI: 10.1093/ndt/

[8] Cohen B, Smits JM, Haase B, Persijn G, Vanrenterghem Y, Frei U. Expanding the donor pool to increase renal transplantation. Nephrology,

2005;**20**(1):34-41. DOI: 10.1093/ndt/

Dialysis, Transplantation.

[9] Banasik M. Living donor transplantation--the real gift of life. Procurement and the ethical assessment. Annals of Transplantation.

[10] Bettschart V, Boubaker A, Martinet O, Golshayan D,

10.1007/s00147-003-0561-y

[11] Kumar A, Chaturvedi S, Gulia A, Maheshwari R, Dassi V, Desai P. Laparoscopic live

transproceed.2018.03.034

[12] Giulianotti P, Gorodner V, Sbrana F, Tzvetanov I, Jeon H,

donor nephrectomy: Comparison of outcomes right versus left. Transplantation Proceedings.

2018;**50**(8):2327-2332. DOI: 10.1016/j.

Bianco F, et al. Robotic transabdominal kidney transplantation in a morbidly obese patient. American Journal of Transplantation. 2010;**10**(6):1478-1482. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2010.03116.x

[13] Menon M, Sood A, Bhandari M, Kher V, Ghosh P, Abaza R, et al. Robotic kidney transplantation with regional hypothermia: A stepby-step description of the vattikuti urology institute-medanta technique (IDEAL phase 2a). European Urology. 2014;**65**(5):991-1000. DOI: 10.1016/j.

eururo.2013.12.006

Wauters JP, Mosimann F. Laparoscopic right nephrectomy for live kidney donation: Functional results. Transplant International. 2003;**16**(6):419-424. DOI:

gfi150

gfh506

2006;**11**(1):4-6

[2] Herrell SD, Smith JA. Laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: What are the real advantages? BJU International. 2005;**95**(1):3-4. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05235.x

[3] Territo A, Mottrie A, Abaza R, Rogers C, Menon M, Bhandari M, et al. Robotic kidney transplantation: Current status and future perspectives. Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica. 2017;**69**(1):5-13. DOI: 10.23736/

Moore RG, et al. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation.

Benedetti E. Early experience with robotically assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Surgical Laparoscopy,

Techniques. 2002;**12**(1):64-70. DOI: 10.1097/00019509-200202000-00011

[6] Hubert J, Renoult E, Mourey E, Frimat L, Cormier L, Kessler M. Complete robotic-assistance during laparoscopic living donor nephrectomies: An evaluation of 38 procedures at a single site. International Journal of Urology. 2007;**14**(11):986-989. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2007.01876.x

[7] Renoult E, Hubert J, Ladrière M, Billaut N, Mourey E, Feuillu B, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic and open live-donor nephrectomy: A comparison of donor morbidity and early renal allograft outcomes. Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation.

**References**

10.1038/kisup.2015.2

S0393-2249.16.02856-3

[4] Ratner LE, Ciseck LJ,

[5] Horgan S, Vanuno D,

Endoscopy & Percutaneous

1995;**60**:1047-1049

novel procedure utilizing the IDEAL guidelines (IDEAL phase 0 and 1). European Urology. 2014;**65**(5):1001- 1009. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.11.011

[27] Bianchi G, Martorana E, Ghaith A, Pirola GM, Rani M, Bove P, et al. Laparoscopic access overview: Is there a safest entry method? Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Ed). 2016;**40**(6):386-392. DOI: 10.1016/j. acuroe.2016.05.011

[28] Breda A, Territo A, Gausa L, Rodríguez-Faba O, Caffaratti J, de León JP, et al. Robotic kidney transplantation: One year after the beginning. World Journal of Urology. 2017;**35**(10):1507-1515. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-017-2006-8

[29] Wagenaar S, Nederhoed JH, Hoksbergen AWJ, Bonjer HJ, Wisselink W, van Ramshorst GH. Minimally invasive, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted techniques versus open techniques for kidney transplant recipients: A systematic review. European Urology. 2017;**72**(2):205-217. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.020

[30] Ahlawat RK, Tugcu V, Arora S, Wong P, Sood A, Jeong W, et al. Learning curves and timing of surgical trials: Robotic kidney transplantation with regional hypothermia. Journal of Endourology. 2018;**32**(12):1160-1165. DOI: 10.1089/end.2017.0697

[31] Sood A, Ghani KR, Ahlawat R, Modi P, Abaza R, Jeong W, et al. Application of the statistical process control method for prospective patient safety monitoring during the learning phase: Robotic kidney transplantation with regional hypothermia (ideal phase 2a-b). European Urology. 2014;**66**(2):371- 378. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.055

[32] Breda A, Decaestecker K, Territo A. Robotic Kidney Transplantation Course, Orsi Academy, Belgium. Available

from: https://www.orsi-online.com/en/ training/rkt-w-dr-breda

[33] Vignolini G, Sessa F, Greco I, Cito G, Vanacore D, Cocci A, et al. Intraoperative assessment of ureteral and graft reperfusion during robotic kidney transplantation with indocyanine green fluorescence videography. Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica. 2019;**71**(1):79-84. DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.18.03278-2

[34] Cacciamani GE, Shakir A, Tafuri A, Gill K, Han J, Ahmadi N, et al. Best practices in near-infrared fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green (NIRF/ICG)-guided robotic urologic surgery: A systematic reviewbased expert consensus. World Journal of Urology. 2019. DOI: 10.1007/ s00345-019-02870-z

[35] Figueiredo A, Lledò- Garcìa E. European Texbook on Kidney Tranplantation (ESTU-EAU). The European Association of Urology First ed. Arnhem: The EAU section of transplantation urology; 2017

[36] Peris A, Lazzeri C, Cianchi G, Bonizzoli M, Batacchi S, Franci A, et al. Implementing a donation after circulatory death program in a setting of donation after brain death activity. Minerva Anestesiologica. 2018;**84**(12):1387-1392. DOI: 10.23736/ S0375-9393.18.12635-6

[37] Campi R, Vignolini G, Savi E, Sessa F, Agostini S, Serni S. Robotic kidney transplantation allows safe access for transplant renal biopsy and percutaneous procedures. Transplant International. 2019. DOI: 10.1111/ tri.13517

[38] Vignolini G, Sessa F, Greco I, Pili A, Giancane S, Sebastianelli A, et al. Robotic kidney transplantation from a brain-dead deceased donor in a patient with autosomal dominant polycystic

**151**

*Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90276*

kidney disease: First case report. Journal of Endourology Case Reports. 2018;**4**(1):124-128. DOI: 10.1089/

Ratner LE. Laparoscopic nephrectomy for autotransplantation. Urology. 2000;**55**(1):145. DOI: 10.1016/ S0090-4295(99)00367-2

Stoller ML. Laparoscopic nephrectomy with autotransplantation: Safety, efficacy and long-term durability.

2015;**194**(3):738-743. DOI: 10.1016/j.

Abaza R. Completely intracorporeal robotic renal autotransplantation.

2014;**192**(5):1516-1522. DOI: 10.1016/j.

[50] Lee JY, Alzahrani T, Ordon M. Intra-

[48] Tran G, Ramaswamy K, Chi T, Meng M, Freise C,

The Journal of Urology.

[49] Gordon ZN, Angell J,

The Journal of Urology.

corporeal robotic renal autotransplantation. J Can Urol Assoc. 2015;**9**(9-10 October):E748-E749. DOI:

[51] Sood A, Ghosh P, Jeong W, Khanna S, Das J, Bhandari M, et al.

Minimally invasive kidney transplantation: Perioperative considerations and key 6-month outcomes. Transplantation. 2015;**99**(2):316-323. DOI: 10.1097/

TP.0000000000000590

AMO/55313

euf.2018.07.019

[52] Araki M, Wada K, Mitsui Y, Sadahira T, Kubota R, Nishimura S, et al. Robotic renal autotransplantation: First case outside of North America. Acta Medica Okayama. 2017;**71**(4):351-355. DOI: 10.18926/

[53] Decaestecker K, Van Parys B, Van Besien J, Doumerc N, Desender L, Randon C, et al. Robot-assisted kidney autotransplantation: A minimally invasive way to salvage kidneys. European Urology Focus.

2018;**4**(2):198-205. DOI: 10.1016/j.

juro.2014.02.2589

10.5489/cuaj.3015

juro.2015.03.089

[39] Kälble T, Alcaraz A, Budde K, Humke U, Karam G, Lucan M, et al. European Association of Urology : Guidelines on renal transplantation. European Urology. 2005;**47**:156-166

[40] Alcaraz A, Peri L, Izquierdo L, Musquera MI. Robotic kidney transplant the near future? European Urology. 2017;**72**(2):218-219. DOI: 10.1016/j.

[41] Ullman E. Experimentelle Nierentransplantation. 1902. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift.

[42] Carrel D. La Technique Opératoire Des Anastomoses Vasculaires Et La Transplantation Des Viscères. Lyon Médical. 1964;**212**:1561-1568

[43] Campos Freire G. Personal communication to J. J. Kaufman. Transactions of the American Association of Genito-Urinary Surgeons. 1966;**58**:108

[44] Schackman R, Dempster WY. Surgical kidney. A case demonstrated at the PostGraduate medical School of London. British Medical Journal. 1924

[45] Hardy JD. High ureteral injuries: Management by autotransplantation

1963;**184**(2):97-101. DOI: 10.1001/ jama.1963.03700150051008

[46] Azhar B, Patel S, Chadha P, Hakim N. Indications for renal autotransplant: An overview. Experimental and Clinical

DOI: 10.6002/ect.2014.0238

[47] Fabrizio MD, Kavoussi LR, Jackman S, Chan DY, Tseng E,

Transplantation. 2015;**13**(2):109-114.

of the kidney. JAMA.

cren.2018.0050

eururo.2017.03.018

2002;**114**(4):126-127

*Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90276*

*Medical Robotics - New Achievements*

[27] Bianchi G, Martorana E,

acuroe.2016.05.011

[28] Breda A, Territo A, Gausa L, Rodríguez-Faba O,

10.1007/s00345-017-2006-8

[29] Wagenaar S, Nederhoed JH, Hoksbergen AWJ, Bonjer HJ, Wisselink W, van Ramshorst GH. Minimally invasive, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted techniques versus open techniques for kidney transplant recipients: A systematic review. European Urology. 2017;**72**(2):205-217. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.020

[30] Ahlawat RK, Tugcu V, Arora S, Wong P, Sood A, Jeong W, et al. Learning curves and timing of surgical trials: Robotic kidney transplantation with regional hypothermia. Journal of Endourology. 2018;**32**(12):1160-1165.

DOI: 10.1089/end.2017.0697

[31] Sood A, Ghani KR, Ahlawat R, Modi P, Abaza R, Jeong W, et al. Application of the statistical process control method for prospective patient safety monitoring during the learning phase: Robotic kidney transplantation with regional hypothermia (ideal phase 2a-b). European Urology. 2014;**66**(2):371- 378. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.055

[32] Breda A, Decaestecker K, Territo A. Robotic Kidney Transplantation Course, Orsi Academy, Belgium. Available

novel procedure utilizing the IDEAL guidelines (IDEAL phase 0 and 1). European Urology. 2014;**65**(5):1001- 1009. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.11.011 from: https://www.orsi-online.com/en/

Greco I, Cito G, Vanacore D, Cocci A, et al. Intraoperative assessment of ureteral and graft reperfusion during robotic kidney transplantation with indocyanine green fluorescence videography. Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica. 2019;**71**(1):79-84. DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.18.03278-2

[34] Cacciamani GE, Shakir A, Tafuri A, Gill K, Han J, Ahmadi N, et al. Best practices in near-infrared fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green (NIRF/ICG)-guided robotic urologic surgery: A systematic reviewbased expert consensus. World Journal

of Urology. 2019. DOI: 10.1007/

[35] Figueiredo A, Lledò- Garcìa E. European Texbook on Kidney Tranplantation (ESTU-EAU). The European Association of Urology First ed. Arnhem: The EAU section of

transplantation urology; 2017

S0375-9393.18.12635-6

tri.13517

[36] Peris A, Lazzeri C, Cianchi G, Bonizzoli M, Batacchi S, Franci A, et al. Implementing a donation after circulatory death program in a setting of donation after brain death activity. Minerva Anestesiologica. 2018;**84**(12):1387-1392. DOI: 10.23736/

[37] Campi R, Vignolini G, Savi E, Sessa F, Agostini S, Serni S. Robotic kidney transplantation allows safe access for transplant renal biopsy and percutaneous procedures. Transplant International. 2019. DOI: 10.1111/

[38] Vignolini G, Sessa F, Greco I, Pili A, Giancane S, Sebastianelli A, et al. Robotic kidney transplantation from a brain-dead deceased donor in a patient with autosomal dominant polycystic

s00345-019-02870-z

training/rkt-w-dr-breda

[33] Vignolini G, Sessa F,

Ghaith A, Pirola GM, Rani M, Bove P, et al. Laparoscopic access overview: Is there a safest entry method? Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Ed). 2016;**40**(6):386-392. DOI: 10.1016/j.

Caffaratti J, de León JP, et al. Robotic kidney transplantation: One year after the beginning. World Journal of Urology. 2017;**35**(10):1507-1515. DOI:

**150**

kidney disease: First case report. Journal of Endourology Case Reports. 2018;**4**(1):124-128. DOI: 10.1089/ cren.2018.0050

[39] Kälble T, Alcaraz A, Budde K, Humke U, Karam G, Lucan M, et al. European Association of Urology : Guidelines on renal transplantation. European Urology. 2005;**47**:156-166

[40] Alcaraz A, Peri L, Izquierdo L, Musquera MI. Robotic kidney transplant the near future? European Urology. 2017;**72**(2):218-219. DOI: 10.1016/j. eururo.2017.03.018

[41] Ullman E. Experimentelle Nierentransplantation. 1902. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift. 2002;**114**(4):126-127

[42] Carrel D. La Technique Opératoire Des Anastomoses Vasculaires Et La Transplantation Des Viscères. Lyon Médical. 1964;**212**:1561-1568

[43] Campos Freire G. Personal communication to J. J. Kaufman. Transactions of the American Association of Genito-Urinary Surgeons. 1966;**58**:108

[44] Schackman R, Dempster WY. Surgical kidney. A case demonstrated at the PostGraduate medical School of London. British Medical Journal. 1924

[45] Hardy JD. High ureteral injuries: Management by autotransplantation of the kidney. JAMA. 1963;**184**(2):97-101. DOI: 10.1001/ jama.1963.03700150051008

[46] Azhar B, Patel S, Chadha P, Hakim N. Indications for renal autotransplant: An overview. Experimental and Clinical Transplantation. 2015;**13**(2):109-114. DOI: 10.6002/ect.2014.0238

[47] Fabrizio MD, Kavoussi LR, Jackman S, Chan DY, Tseng E,

Ratner LE. Laparoscopic nephrectomy for autotransplantation. Urology. 2000;**55**(1):145. DOI: 10.1016/ S0090-4295(99)00367-2

[48] Tran G, Ramaswamy K, Chi T, Meng M, Freise C, Stoller ML. Laparoscopic nephrectomy with autotransplantation: Safety, efficacy and long-term durability. The Journal of Urology. 2015;**194**(3):738-743. DOI: 10.1016/j. juro.2015.03.089

[49] Gordon ZN, Angell J, Abaza R. Completely intracorporeal robotic renal autotransplantation. The Journal of Urology. 2014;**192**(5):1516-1522. DOI: 10.1016/j. juro.2014.02.2589

[50] Lee JY, Alzahrani T, Ordon M. Intracorporeal robotic renal autotransplantation. J Can Urol Assoc. 2015;**9**(9-10 October):E748-E749. DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.3015

[51] Sood A, Ghosh P, Jeong W, Khanna S, Das J, Bhandari M, et al. Minimally invasive kidney transplantation: Perioperative considerations and key 6-month outcomes. Transplantation. 2015;**99**(2):316-323. DOI: 10.1097/ TP.0000000000000590

[52] Araki M, Wada K, Mitsui Y, Sadahira T, Kubota R, Nishimura S, et al. Robotic renal autotransplantation: First case outside of North America. Acta Medica Okayama. 2017;**71**(4):351-355. DOI: 10.18926/ AMO/55313

[53] Decaestecker K, Van Parys B, Van Besien J, Doumerc N, Desender L, Randon C, et al. Robot-assisted kidney autotransplantation: A minimally invasive way to salvage kidneys. European Urology Focus. 2018;**4**(2):198-205. DOI: 10.1016/j. euf.2018.07.019

*Medical Robotics - New Achievements*

[54] Van Parys B, Van Besien J, Doumerc N, Desender L, Randon C, De Ryck F, et al. Mp76-15 robot-assisted kidney autotransplantation (Rakat): Update from the first series in Europe. The Journal of Urology. 2019;**201**(Suppl 4). DOI: 10.1097/01. ju.0000557307.93315.cc

*Medical Robotics - New Achievements*

[54] Van Parys B, Van Besien J, Doumerc N, Desender L, Randon C, De Ryck F, et al. Mp76-15 robot-assisted kidney autotransplantation (Rakat): Update from the first series in Europe. The Journal of Urology. 2019;**201**(Suppl 4). DOI: 10.1097/01.

ju.0000557307.93315.cc

**152**

### *Edited by Serdar Küçük and Abdullah Erdem Canda*

Medical robotics has significant potential for treating patients rapidly and comfortably. Surgical and rehabilitation robotic systems comprise a major portion of medical robots. Both types of robots have unique advantages that are continually improved upon day after day and year after year. This book critically examines the development and historical evolution of medical robotics with a particular focus on urologic robotic surgery.

Published in London, UK © 2020 IntechOpen © ClimbOne / iStock

Medical Robotics - New Achievements

Medical Robotics

New Achievements

*Edited by Serdar Küçük and Abdullah Erdem Canda*