Intially, robot-assisted surgery (RAS) was developed by the USA forces as a tele-surgery tool in order to perform procedures in war zones without endangering the surgeon [1]. The first clinical trials on RAS were carried out by cardiac surgeons, then by specialists in other fields like ear nose and throat, gynecology, colorectal, thoracic, maxilla-facial, and urology. Since its introduction into clinical practice, RAS has achieved increasing success: From the first pioneering platforms, it evolved into the current 4500 individual systems of many different developmental generations used worldwide as of June 2018. According to data from North American population-based registries and European academic institutions, the robotic approach is currently applied in more than half of patients undergoing intervention for prostate, kidney, and bladder carcinoma [2]. RAS consents to maintain the benefits of laparoscopy with additional advantages including magnification of the operative field due to three-dimensional vision, greater accuracy due to EndoWrist(r) instruments (Intuitive Surgical Inc) with seven degrees of motion, primary surgeon camera control, and tremor filtration. The main disadvantages are the lack of haptic feedback and the high costs. However, this technology permits the reproduction of the same surgical step of open surgery with the benefits of a minimally invasive technique, overcoming the limitations of the laparoscopy: in particular, RAS can reduce physical strain and simplify the learning curve. For these reasons, RAS has become the gold standard approach for the treatment of many urological diseases. In particular, the robotic technique achieves the greatest results when used in the treatment of prostate cancer; robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP) has already replaced open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, ensuring exiting results in terms of intraoperative blood loss, transfusion rates, duration of catheterization, length of hospital stay, readmission rates, but above all for what concerns potency and urinary continence recovery. Concerning functional outcomes, these results are due to the better visualization of vascular and nervous structures and more accurate dissection: This allows better preservation of anatomic components that control potency and urinary continence [3, 4]. Radical cystectomy (RC) is the gold standard treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer and BCG resistant non-muscle-invasive one [5]. Although traditional surgery remains the standard approach, RAS is being increasingly used. Recently, [PERSON] et al. performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing open RC with RAS. They found similar oncologic outcomes in terms of positive surgical margins, overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and recurrence-free survival; compared to open RC, RAS RC showed longer operative time and 1 to 1.5 days shorter mean length of hospital stay. Intra-operative, 30-day complication rate and mortality were similar, but grade 3, 90-day, complication rates favored robotic technique. Blood loss was lower and, consequently, the transfusion rate was significantly lower in robotic RC and this is due to a better visualization of the operative field and more accurate dissection in debulking time of intervention [6]. Although these exciting and promising results, robotic RC is reported in the European Association of Urology Guidelines as an experimental procedure. Concerning kidney surgery, RAS provides no advantages with respect to laparoscopy when radical nephrectomy should be performed. Conversely, for partial nephrectomy that is the gold standard treatment of T1 renal tumor, RAS has significant advantages with respect to laparoscopy. Recently [PERSON] et al. performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis and they found robotic partial nephrectomy decreased complications, conversions to open, positive surgical margin and ischemia time [7].