Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robot-assisted laparoscopic extravesical versus conventional laparoscopic extravesical ureteric reimplantation for pediatric primary vesicoureteric reflux: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Surgery International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteric reimplantation (RALUR) with conventional laparoscopic extravesical ureteric reimplantation (LEVUR) for primary vesicoureteric reflux in children. We searched the databases to identify all papers of RALUR and LEVUR between 2001 and 2020. Systematic review was performed to identify patient data, age, reflux grades, laterality, duration of surgery, time to discharge, success rate and complications. Heterogeneity was reported with I2 statistics and publication bias was assessed by Doi curve and Luis Furuya-Kanamori index. Pooled data from both groups were compared with Student’s t test and Fisher’s exact test, wherever appropriate. From a total of 43 articles screened, 28 articles were included (18 RALUR and 10 LEVUR). The I2 statistics for RALUR and LEVUR showed heterogeneity of 86% and 25%, respectively. Both groups had comparable minor publication bias. RALUR had higher proportion of grade 5 VUR (p < 0.001) and bilateral reimplantations (p < 0.001). The success rate of RALUR was significantly lower than that of LEVUR (97.6% vs. 93.4%, p = 0.0018). RALUR took a significantly longer duration for surgery compared to LEVUR, both for unilateral and bilateral cases (p < 0.001). The complication rate was not significantly different: 6.6% for RALUR and 5.35% for LEVUR (p = 0.32). The most common complication in both groups was post-operative urinary retention in bilateral cases. Articles on LEVUR reported more consistent success. RALUR series had higher proportion of grade 5 cases and bilateral reimplantations. RALUR reported longer operative time and lower success compared to LEVUR, with a complication rate comparable to LEVUR.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wang H-HS, Tejwani R, Cannon GM et al (2016) Open versus minimally invasive ureteroneocystostomy: a population-level analysis. J PediatrUrol 12:232.e1–232.e6

    Google Scholar 

  2. Tsai YC, Wu CC, Yang SSD (2008) Minilaparoscopic nerve-sparing extravesical ureteral reimplantation for primary vesicoureteral reflux: a preliminary report. J LaparoendoscAdvSurg Tech 18:767–770

    Google Scholar 

  3. Riquelme M, Lopez M, Landa S et al (2013) Laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation (LEVUR): a multicenter experience with 95 cases. Eur J PediatrSurg 23:143–147

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bayne AP, Shoss JM, Starke NR et al (2012) Single-center experience with pediatric laparoscopic extravesical reimplantation: safe and effective in simple and complex anatomy. J LaparoendoscAdvSurg Tech 22:102–106

    Google Scholar 

  5. Javali T, Pathade A, Nagaraj HK (2015) Laparoscopic extravesicaldetrusorraphy, a minimally invasive treatment option for vesicoureteral reflux: a single centre experience. J PediatrUrol 11:88.e1–88.e6

    Google Scholar 

  6. Esposito C, Escolino M, Lopez M et al (2016) Surgical management of pediatric vesicoureteral reflux: a comparative study between endoscopic, laparoscopic, and open surgery. J LaparoendoscAdvSurg Tech 26:574–580

    Google Scholar 

  7. Soulier V, Scalabre A, Lopez M et al (2017) Laparoscopic vesico-ureteral reimplantation with Lich–Gregoir approach in children: medium term results of 159 renal units in 117 children. World J Urol 35:1791–1798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Badawy HE, Refaai K, Soliman AS et al (2017) Laparoscopic re-implantation of refluxing ureter in children: a feasibility study. Arab J Urol 15:48–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bustangi N, Kallas AC, Scalabre A et al (2018) Extravesical ureteral reimplantation following Lich–Gregoir technique for the correction of Vesico-Ureteral Reflux: retrospective comparative study open vs. laparoscopy. Front Pediatr 6:388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Capolicchio J-P (2008) Laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation: technique. AdvUrol 5:1

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lopez M, Varlet F (2010) Laparoscopic extravesical transperitoneal approach following the Lich–Gregoir technique in the treatment of vesicoureteral reflux in children. J PediatrSurg 45:806–810

    Google Scholar 

  12. Peters CA (2004) Robotically assisted surgery in pediatric urology. UrolClin North Am 31:743–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Casale P, Patel RP, Kolon TF (2008) Nerve sparing robotic extravesical ureteral reimplantation. J Urol 179:1987–1990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Smith RP, Oliver JL, Peters CA (2011) Pediatric robotic extravesical ureteral reimplantation: comparison with open surgery. J Urol 185:1876–1881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Marchini GS, Hong YK, Minnillo BJ et al (2011) Robotic assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation in children: case-matched comparative study with open surgical approach. J Urol 185:1870–1875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kasturi S, Sehgal SS, Christman MS et al (2012) Prospective long-term analysis of nerve-sparing extravesical robotic-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation. Urology 79:680–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chalmers D, Herbst K, Kim C (2012) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation: an initial experience. J PediatrUrol 8:268–271

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dangle PP, Shah A, Gundeti MS (2014) Robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteric reimplantation: extravesical technique. BJU Int 114:630–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Schomburg JL, Haberman K, Willihnganz-Lawson KH et al (2014) Robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation: a single surgeon comparison to open surgery. J PediatrUrol 10:875–879

    Google Scholar 

  20. Akhavan A, Avery D, Lendvay TS (2014) Robot-assisted extravesical ureteral reimplantation: outcomes and conclusions from 78 ureters. J PediatrUrol 10:864–868

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hayashi Y, Mizuno K, Kurokawa S et al (2014) Extravesical robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation for vesicoureteral reflux: initial experience in Japan with the ureteral advancement technique. Int J Urol 21:1016–1021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Grimsby GM, Dwyer ME, Jacobs MA et al (2015) Multi-institutional review of outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation. J Urol 193:1791–1795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Herz D, Fuchs M, Todd A et al (2016) Robot-assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplant: a critical look at surgical outcomes. J PediatrUrol 12:402.e1–402.e9

    Google Scholar 

  24. Arlen AM, Broderick KM, Travers C et al (2016) Outcomes of complex robot-assisted extravesical ureteral reimplantationin the pediatric population. J PediatrUrol 12:169.e1–169.e6

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gundeti MS, Boysen WR, Shah A (2016) Robot-assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation: technique modifications contribute to optimized outcomes. EurUrol 70:818–823

    Google Scholar 

  26. Boysen W, Ellison JS, Kim C et al (2017) Multi-institutional review of outcomes and complications of robot-assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation for treatment of primary vesicoureteral reflux in children. J Urol 197:1555–1561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Boysen WR, Akhavan A, Ko J et al (2018) Prospective multicenter study on robot-assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation (RALUR-EV): outcomes and complications. J PediatrUrol 14:262.e1–262.e6

    Google Scholar 

  28. Sachdev R, Spencer K, Srinivasan AK et al (2019) The robot-assisted extravesicalantireflux surgery: how we overcame the learning curve. Front Pediatr 7:93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kim EJ, Song SH, Sheth K et al (2019) Does de novo hydronephrosis after pediatric robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation behave similarly to open reimplantation? J PediatrUrol 15:604.e1–604.e6

    Google Scholar 

  30. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kanamori LF, Barendregt J, Doi SAR (2018) A new improved graphical and quantitative method for detecting bias in meta-analysis. Int J Evid Based Health 16:195–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML et al (2009) The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg 250:187–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Deng T, Liu B, Luo L et al (2018) Robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open ureteral reimplantation for pediatric vesicoureteral reflux: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol 36:819–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Cannon GM, Ost MC (2017) Robot-assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteric reimplantation for primary vesicoureteral reflux in children. J Urol 197:1379–1381

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pediatric Surgery, Pediatric Urology and MAS, Ankura Hospitals for Women and Children, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

    V. V. S. Chandrasekharam

  2. Pediatric Urology, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

    Ramesh Babu

Authors
  1. V. V. S. Chandrasekharam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ramesh Babu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. V. S. Chandrasekharam.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical approval

Not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chandrasekharam, V.V.S., Babu, R. Robot-assisted laparoscopic extravesical versus conventional laparoscopic extravesical ureteric reimplantation for pediatric primary vesicoureteric reflux: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Surg Int 36, 1371–1378 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-020-04749-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-020-04749-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation