{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013784461152882205, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0043859649122807015, 'mean_word_length': 4.9812734082397006, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Editorial Comment for Chopra et al.

We congratulate the authors on this helpful article detailing robotic port placement for some of the most common minimally invasive urologic procedures. The experience of almost 2400 cases over the past 4 years represents one of the most robust robotic cohorts in the country, and the community should take note of how their experience has affected their practices. As robotics continues to increase in popularity, the number of young surgeons at the front end of the robotics learning curve will continue to rise. Although port placement can be found in common surgical atlases, the pitfalls and nuances of this critical step are often underpresented. Experience from high-volume robotic centers can help bridge the gap between what is found in a textbook and the varying realities encountered during robotic surgery. In our 12 years of experience with robotic surgery, we continue to seek out and refine our robotic techniques. Although our port placement is similar to those outlined in the article, we do believe there is room for surgeon modification and preference. For example, in transperitoneal kidney surgery, we place our main robotic triangle as high as possible with the fourth arm as inferior and lateral to prevent clashing. we would suggest it is not so much using an exact configuration, but rather understanding the concepts of port placement, which the authors clearly outline in this article. In this way, surgeons are prepared to navigate obstacles that present themselves during different cases with patients who have varying body sizes.