title: Robotic single port surgery: Current status and future considerations.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  It has been established that robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery has several advantages when compared with standard laparoscopic surgery. Optics, ergonomics, dexterity and precision are all enhanced with the use of a robotic platform. For these reasons, it was postulated that the application of robotics to laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) could overcome some of the constraints seen with the conventional laparoscopic approach. Issues such as instrument clashing, inability to achieve effective triangulation for dissection and difficulties with intracorporeal suturing have limited the widespread adoption of conventional LESS. The application of robotics has eliminated many of the constraints experienced with conventional LESS; however, challenges still remain.
  
  
  METHODS
  A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed to identify relevant studies. There were no time restrictions applied to the search, but only studies in English were included. We used the following search terms: Robotic single site surgery, robotic single port surgery, robotic single incision surgery and robotic laparoendoscopic single site surgery.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A number of centers have published their experience with robotic-laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (R-LESS); however, no prospective studies exist. What is clear is that R-LESS minimizes several of the difficulties experienced with conventional LESS, including intracorporeal suturing and triangulation during dissection. Outcomes are comparable to standard robotic surgery, with a trend toward improved cosmesis and reduced pain. However, a significant advantage with regard to these two factors has yet to be demonstrated.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  R-LESS is technically feasible and the benefits of robotic surgery eliminate many of the challenges seen with conventional LESS. However, despite the advantages of the robotic platform, R-LESS is not free of challenges. Instrument clashing remains an issue due to the bulky profile of the current robotic system. Other issues include lack of space for the assistant at the bedside, inability to incorporate the 4(th) robotic arm for retraction and difficulties with triangulation. Although solutions for some of these issues are currently under development, R-LESS is still very much in its infancy.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Center for Robotic and Laparoscopic Surgery, Glickman Urologic and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
authors.forename: Dinesh
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Samarasekera
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Center for Robotic and Laparoscopic Surgery, Glickman Urologic and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
authors.forename: Jihad H
authors.initials: JH
authors.lastname: Kaouk
keywords: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery; robotics; single port surgery
references.citation: J Endourol. 2011 Sep;25(9):1481-5
references.pmid: 21902517
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2011 Jan;59(1):26-45
references.pmid: 20828918
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2001 Jul;40(1):2-6; discussion 7
references.pmid: 11528170
references.citation: Urology. 2009 Nov;74(5):1029-34
references.pmid: 19660793
references.citation: Urology. 2010 Jan;75(1):100-3
references.pmid: 19628259
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2011 Nov;60(5):998-1005
references.pmid: 21684069
references.citation: Int J Med Robot. 2011 Mar;7(1):17-21
references.pmid: 21341358
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2012 Feb;61(2):415-22
references.pmid: 21216523
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2011 May;59(5):815-22
references.pmid: 21334805
references.citation: Int J Urol. 2010 May;17(5):410-31
references.pmid: 20236371
references.citation: Urology. 2010 Dec;76(6):1279-82
references.pmid: 20980046
references.citation: Surg Endosc. 2010 Dec;24(12):3224
references.pmid: 20574857
references.citation: Int J Med Robot. 2010 Dec;6(4):454-64
references.pmid: 20949430
references.citation: J Gastrointest Surg. 2011 Dec;15(12):2182-6
references.pmid: 21948180
references.citation: Urology. 2011 Sep;78(3):581-5
references.pmid: 21783230
references.citation: BJU Int. 2009 Feb;103(3):366-9
references.pmid: 18778353
references.citation: Urology. 2007 Dec;70(6):1039-42
references.pmid: 18158008
references.citation: Surg Endosc. 2010 Jun;24(6):1331-5
references.pmid: 20033723
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2012 Feb;61(2):410-4
references.pmid: 22036645
references.citation: J Med Assoc Thai. 2010 Mar;93(3):383-7
references.pmid: 20420116
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2009 May;55(5):1198-204
references.pmid: 18715694
references.citation: J Endourol. 2009 Dec;23(12):1957-60
references.pmid: 19909074
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2010 Jan;57(1):132-6
references.pmid: 19361916
references.citation: Surg Endosc. 2012 Sep;26(9):2687-94
references.pmid: 22476831
references.citation: J Endourol. 2005 Sep;19(7):788-92
references.pmid: 16190829
references.citation: Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2011;2011:7045-8
references.pmid: 22255961
references.citation: BJU Int. 2012 Sep;110(5):732-7
references.pmid: 22340135
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2012 Jul;62(1):175-9
references.pmid: 22469392
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2010 Jan;57(1):95-101
references.pmid: 19664877
references.citation: J Korean Surg Soc. 2011 Dec;81 Suppl 1:S21-4
references.pmid: 22319732
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2010 Oct;58(4):544-50
references.pmid: 20702030
references.citation: J Endourol. 2012 Aug;26(8):971-4
references.pmid: 22260717
references.citation: Urology. 2008 Dec;72(6):1190-3
references.pmid: 19041022
references.citation: Int Braz J Urol. 2009 Jan-Feb;35(1):92-3
references.pmid: 19254405
references.citation: Urology. 2012 May;79(5):975-9
references.pmid: 22446346