Role of Minimally Invasive Techniques in Combined Urological and General Surgical Procedures
Keywords:
Minimally invasive surgery, combined surgery, urology, general surgeryAbstract
Background Minimally invasive techniques (MIT) in combined urological and general surgical procedures have gained widespread acceptance due to their benefits in reducing patient trauma, enhancing precision, and minimizing recovery time. These techniques, particularly laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgeries, offer significant advantages in managing complex cases involving multiple organ systems, ensuring faster recovery and improved outcomes.
Objectives This study aims to assess the effectiveness of minimally invasive techniques in combined urological and general surgical procedures, focusing on recovery time, complication rates, and patient satisfaction compared to traditional open surgeries.
Methodology A prospective cohort study was conducted at department of urology Pak international medical college Peshawar from June 2024 to June 2025. patients undergoing combined urological and general surgical procedures using minimally invasive techniques. Participants were assessed for postoperative recovery, complication rates, and hospital stay duration. Statistical analysis was performed using t-tests, chi-square tests, and regression models to compare outcomes between minimally invasive and traditional open surgical groups. Data was collected preoperatively and postoperatively, with a focus on patient recovery metrics and surgical success.
Results The mean age of patients was 58 years, with a standard deviation of 12.5 years. A total of 150 patients were included, with 75 undergoing minimally invasive procedures and 75 receiving traditional open surgery. The postoperative complication rate was significantly lower in the minimally invasive group (p < 0.05). Recovery times were also notably shorter in the minimally invasive group, with a mean recovery time of 6.5 days compared to 12 days in the open surgery group. The p-value for the difference in recovery time was 0.02, indicating a statistically significant advantage for minimally invasive surgery.
Conclusion Minimally invasive techniques in combined urological and general surgical procedures significantly improve patient outcomes by reducing recovery time and complication rates. This study supports the growing adoption of MIT for complex surgeries, demonstrating their advantages over traditional open techniques. The results underline the need for further exploration of these approaches in multi-disciplinary surgical settings to refine techniques and optimize patient care...
Downloads
References
Bhojani N, Miller LE, Bhattacharyya SK, Chua WJ, Tailly T, Eisner B, et al. Continuous Intrarenal Pressure Monitoring during Endourological Procedures for Stone Disease: A Canary in the Coalmine for Optimizing Patient Safety. Urologia internationalis. 2025;109:641-7. https://doi.org/10.1159/000547874.
2. Bongbong DN, Abdou W, Said ET, Gabriel RA. National trends in perioperative epidural analgesia use for surgical patients. Journal of clinical anesthesia. 2024;99:111642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111642.
3. Cheema MJ, Hassan MMU, Asim A, Nathaniel E, Shafeeq MI, Tayyab MA, et al. Innovations in Hybrid Laparoscopic Surgery: Integrating Advanced Technologies for Multidisciplinary Cases. Cureus. 2024;16:e63219. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.63219.
4. Cizmic A, Häberle F, Preukschas AA, Hampe L, Bintintan V, Hackert T, et al. Telestration with augmented reality in minimally invasive and robotic-assisted surgery: a scoping review. Surgical endoscopy. 2025;39:8000-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-025-12380-2.
5. Das JK, Singh M, Rangad G. Combined Retroperitoneal and Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Procedures by a Single Surgeon: Boon to Economically and Medically Backward Areas. Cureus. 2021;13:e13152. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.13152.
6. Ditonno F, Franco A, Manfredi C, Chow AK, Vourganti S, Cherullo EE, et al. Single Port Robotic Pyeloplasty: early single-center experience. International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. 2023;49:757-62. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2023.0406.
7. Faba OR, Boissier R, Budde K, Figueiredo A, Hevia V, García EL, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Transplantation: Update 2024. European urology focus. 2025;11:365-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2024.10.010.
8. Gauhar V, Yuen SKK, Gadzhiev N, Wroclawski M, Pirola GM, Lim EJ, et al. Optilume, a minimally invasive solution for BPH and urethral stricture: what we know, what we need? an EAU endourology scoping review. BMC urology. 2025;25:196. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-025-01896-3.
9. Hamouda A, Ibrahim A, Corsi N, Elterman DS, Chughtai B, Bhojani N, et al. Peri-prostatic nerve block using Clarius EC7 HD₃ handheld ultrasound guidance. The Canadian journal of urology. 2023;30:11741-6.
10. Jiang S, Li Z, Ma X, Ma X, Meng Y, Ye M, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approach: a challenging multidisciplinary minimally invasive surgery of intravascular leiomyomatosis with intracardiac extension. Fertility and sterility. 2023;119:155-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.09.022.
11. Kang Q, Kang B, Yu Y, Yang B. Transurethral enucleation of the prostate combined with laparoscopic bladder diverticulectomy. Minimally invasive therapy & allied technologies : MITAT : official journal of the Society for Minimally Invasive Therapy. 2022;31:144-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2020.1768123.
12. Kishikawa H, Suzuki N, Suzuki Y, Hamasaki T, Kondo Y, Sakamoto A. Effect of Robot-assisted Surgery on Anesthetic and Perioperative Management for Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy under Combined General and Epidural Anesthesia. Journal of Nippon Medical School = Nippon Ika Daigaku zasshi. 2021;88:121-7. https://doi.org/10.1272/jnms.JNMS.2021_88-304.
13. Leslie SW, Aeddula NR. Vesicoureteral Reflux. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL) ineligible companies. Disclosure: Narothama Aeddula declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.: StatPearls Publishing
Copyright © 2026, StatPearls Publishing LLC.; 2026.
14. Liu Y, Li Z, Dou Y, Wang J, Li Y. Anatomical variations, treatment and outcomes of Herlyn-Werner-Wunderlich syndrome: a literature review of 1673 cases. Archives of gynecology and obstetrics. 2023;308:1409-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06856-y.
15. Makary J, van Diepen DC, Arianayagam R, McClintock G, Fallot J, Leslie S, et al. The evolution of image guidance in robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP): a glimpse into the future. Journal of robotic surgery. 2022;16:765-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01305-5.
16. Mao R, Gao L, Gang W, Wen L. Literature Review of Handheld Articulating Instruments in Minimally Invasive Surgery. Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques Part A. 2024;34:47-54. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2023.0366.
17. Mishra DK, Agrawal MS, Shah M, Naganathan K, Hameed Z, Gauhar V. Ambulatory Minimally Invasive Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery in Management of Large Impacted Proximal Ureteral Calculi: A Feasibility Study at a Tertiary Referral Center. Journal of endourology. 2023;37:251-6. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2022.0234.
18. Nedbal C, Gauhar V, Herrmann T, Singh A, Talyshinskii A, Al Jaafari F, et al. Simulation-based training in minimally invasive surgical therapies (MIST): current evidence and future directions for artificial intelligence integration-a systematic review by EAU endourology. World journal of urology. 2025;43:448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-025-05834-8.
19. Paparidis S, Spartalis E, Mavrigiannaki E, Ferakis N, Stravodimos K, Tsourouflis G, et al. Record and Appraisal of Endophytic Tumor Localization Techniques in Minimally Invasive Kidney-Sparing Procedures. A Systematic Review. Urology journal. 2022;19:161-78. https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v19i.7056.
20. Rivero-Moreno Y, Echevarria S, Vidal-Valderrama C, Pianetti L, Cordova-Guilarte J, Navarro-Gonzalez J, et al. Robotic Surgery: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature and Current Trends. Cureus. 2023;15:e42370. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.42370.
21. Wong EY, Chu TN, Ma R, Dalieh IS, Yang CH, Ramaswamy A, et al. Development of a Classification System for Live Surgical Feedback. JAMA network open. 2023;6:e2320702. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.20702.
22. Zamecnik L, Martan A, Svabik K, Masata J. Laparoscopic removal of intravesically inserted transobturator tape. International urogynecology journal. 2021;32:3309-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04857-0
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
