Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Pediatric Surgery International 3/2019

14.01.2019 | Original Article

Pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP): does weight matter?

verfasst von: Ilan Z. Kafka, Stanislav Kocherov, Jawdat Jaber, Boris Chertin

Erschienen in: Pediatric Surgery International | Ausgabe 3/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

RALP is rapidly becoming the new gold standard treatment for UPJO in children, who suffer from uretero-pelvic obstruction (UPJO). However, presently there is a lack of data regarding the outcomes of RALP in young infants and smaller children. This study aims to compare the outcomes of RALP in children weighing less than 10 kg and matched with an analogous cohort who underwent open pyeloplasty (OP).

Methods

We prospectively compared patients who underwent RALP to a matched cohort of patients who underwent OP from our retrospectively acquired data registry. Comparative outcomes included: Demographics, success rate, complications, and length of hospital stay, postoperative pain score and failure rate. Failure was defined as the need for a secondary intervention for UPJO, or worsening hydronephrosis during follow-up.

Results

A total of 15 patients with a median age of 8 months (range 5–11 months) and median weight 7 kg (range 5.6–9.8 kg) underwent RALP between 2016 and 2018, a matched cohort of 15 children who underwent OP similar in terms of age, weight, gender and affected side between 2014 and 2016. All children had prenatal diagnosis of hydronephrosis and underwent surgery utilizing combined general and regional (Caudal MO) anesthesia. Intrinsic obstruction was present in 13 of RALP group (86.7%) and in 14 in OP group (93.3%). Mean operative time was 67.8 + 13.4 min in RALP group, while 66.5 + 9.5 min in OP group. (p = 0.76) All but two patients in RALP group had stent inserted and required subsequent anesthesia for stent removal, while all OP children had a Salle Pyeloplasty stent inserted during the procedure and underwent removal in an ambulatory setting without the need for anesthesia. There were no failures recorded in the RALP group, while one patient in OP required a secondary intervention. Mean hospital stay was 1 day (1–2 days) for RALP and 2 days (2–3 days) for OP. There was no difference in FLACC Pain Scale in both groups. Clavien–Dindo grade I–II complications occurred in one patient from each group. Two patients from RALP underwent subsequent ureteral reimplantation due to accompanying uretero-vescical junction obstruction.

Conclusions

Our data suggest that RALP can be performed safely in pediatric patients weighing less than 10 kg. with similar outcomes when compared to patients undergoing an open procedure for the same pathology.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Tripp BM, Homsy YL (1995) Neonatal hydronephrosis-the controversy and the management. Pediatr Nephrol 9:503–509CrossRefPubMed Tripp BM, Homsy YL (1995) Neonatal hydronephrosis-the controversy and the management. Pediatr Nephrol 9:503–509CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Elder JS (1997) Antenatal hydronephrosis. Fetal and neonatal management. Pediatr Clin North Am 44:1299–1321CrossRefPubMed Elder JS (1997) Antenatal hydronephrosis. Fetal and neonatal management. Pediatr Clin North Am 44:1299–1321CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Chertin B, Pollack A, Koulikov D et al (2006) Conservative treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction in children with antenatal diagnosis of hydronephrosis: lessons learned after 16 years of follow up. Eur Urol 49(4):734–739CrossRefPubMed Chertin B, Pollack A, Koulikov D et al (2006) Conservative treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction in children with antenatal diagnosis of hydronephrosis: lessons learned after 16 years of follow up. Eur Urol 49(4):734–739CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Anderson JC, Hynes W (1949) Retrocaval ureter; a case diagnosed pre-operatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation. Br J Urol 21(3):209–214CrossRefPubMed Anderson JC, Hynes W (1949) Retrocaval ureter; a case diagnosed pre-operatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation. Br J Urol 21(3):209–214CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat O’Reilly PH, Brooman PJ, Mak S, Jones M, Pickup C, Atkinson C et al (2001) The long-term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. BJU Int 87(4):287–289CrossRefPubMed O’Reilly PH, Brooman PJ, Mak S, Jones M, Pickup C, Atkinson C et al (2001) The long-term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. BJU Int 87(4):287–289CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Tan BJ, Rastinehad AR, Marcovich R, Smith AD, Lee BR (2005) Trends in ureteropelvic junction obstruction management among urologists in the United States. Urology 65:260–264CrossRefPubMed Tan BJ, Rastinehad AR, Marcovich R, Smith AD, Lee BR (2005) Trends in ureteropelvic junction obstruction management among urologists in the United States. Urology 65:260–264CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Peters CA (2011) Pediatric robot-assisted pyeloplasty. J Endourol Endourol Soc 25(2):179–185CrossRef Peters CA (2011) Pediatric robot-assisted pyeloplasty. J Endourol Endourol Soc 25(2):179–185CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Sorensen MD, Delostrinos C, Johnson MH, Grady RW, Lendvay TS (2011) Comparison of the learning curve and outcomes of robotic assisted pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol 185(6 Suppl):2517–2522CrossRefPubMed Sorensen MD, Delostrinos C, Johnson MH, Grady RW, Lendvay TS (2011) Comparison of the learning curve and outcomes of robotic assisted pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol 185(6 Suppl):2517–2522CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Freilich DA, Penna FJ, Nelson CP, Retik AB, Nguyen HT (2010) Parental satisfaction after open versus robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: results from modified Glasgow Children’s Benefit Inventory Survey. J Urol 183(2):704–8040CrossRefPubMed Freilich DA, Penna FJ, Nelson CP, Retik AB, Nguyen HT (2010) Parental satisfaction after open versus robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: results from modified Glasgow Children’s Benefit Inventory Survey. J Urol 183(2):704–8040CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Chertin B, Zeldin A, Kocherov S, Ioscovich A, Ostrovsky IA, Gozal Y (2016) Use of caudal analgesia supplemented with low dose of morphine in children who undergo renal surgery. Curr Urol 9(3):132–137CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Chertin B, Zeldin A, Kocherov S, Ioscovich A, Ostrovsky IA, Gozal Y (2016) Use of caudal analgesia supplemented with low dose of morphine in children who undergo renal surgery. Curr Urol 9(3):132–137CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Minnillo BJ, Cruz JAS, Sayao RH et al (2011) Long-term experience and outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children and young adults. J Urol 185:1455–1460CrossRefPubMed Minnillo BJ, Cruz JAS, Sayao RH et al (2011) Long-term experience and outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children and young adults. J Urol 185:1455–1460CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Dangle PP, Kearns J, Anderson B, Gundeti MS (2013) Outcomes of infants undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty compared to open repair. J Urol 190(6):2221–2224CrossRefPubMed Dangle PP, Kearns J, Anderson B, Gundeti MS (2013) Outcomes of infants undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty compared to open repair. J Urol 190(6):2221–2224CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Valla JS, Breaud J, Griffin SJ, Sautot-Vial N, Beretta F, Guana R et al (2009) Retroperitoneoscopic vs open dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. J Pediatr Urol 5(5):368–373CrossRefPubMed Valla JS, Breaud J, Griffin SJ, Sautot-Vial N, Beretta F, Guana R et al (2009) Retroperitoneoscopic vs open dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. J Pediatr Urol 5(5):368–373CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Van der Toorn F, van den Hoek J, Wolffenbuttel KP, Scheepe JR (2013) Laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty in children from age of 3 years: our clinical outcomes compared with open surgery. J Pediatr Urol 9(2):161–168CrossRefPubMed Van der Toorn F, van den Hoek J, Wolffenbuttel KP, Scheepe JR (2013) Laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty in children from age of 3 years: our clinical outcomes compared with open surgery. J Pediatr Urol 9(2):161–168CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Cundy TP, Shetty K, Clark J, Chang TP, Sriskandarajah K, Gattas NE et al (2013) The first decade of robotic surgery in children. J Pediatr Surg 48(4):858–865CrossRefPubMed Cundy TP, Shetty K, Clark J, Chang TP, Sriskandarajah K, Gattas NE et al (2013) The first decade of robotic surgery in children. J Pediatr Surg 48(4):858–865CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee RS, Retik AB, Borer JG, Peters CA (2006) Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol 175(2):683–687CrossRefPubMed Lee RS, Retik AB, Borer JG, Peters CA (2006) Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol 175(2):683–687CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Avery DI, Herbst KW, Lendvay TS et al (2015) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: multi-institutional experience in infants. J Pediatr Urol 11(139):e1–e139.e5 Avery DI, Herbst KW, Lendvay TS et al (2015) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: multi-institutional experience in infants. J Pediatr Urol 11(139):e1–e139.e5
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Lucas SM, Sundaram CP, Wolf JS Jr, Leveillee RJ, Bird VG, Aziz M et al (2012) Factors that impact the outcome of minimally invasive pyeloplasty: results of the multi-institutional laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty collaborative group. J Urol 187(2):522–527CrossRefPubMed Lucas SM, Sundaram CP, Wolf JS Jr, Leveillee RJ, Bird VG, Aziz M et al (2012) Factors that impact the outcome of minimally invasive pyeloplasty: results of the multi-institutional laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty collaborative group. J Urol 187(2):522–527CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Richter S, Ringel A, Shalev M, Nissenkorn I (2000) The indwelling ureteric stent: a “friendly” procedure with unfriendly high morbidity. BJU Int 85:408–411CrossRefPubMed Richter S, Ringel A, Shalev M, Nissenkorn I (2000) The indwelling ureteric stent: a “friendly” procedure with unfriendly high morbidity. BJU Int 85:408–411CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Joshi HB, Stainthrope A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney AG, Barry MJ (2003) Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility. J Urol 169:1065–1069CrossRefPubMed Joshi HB, Stainthrope A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney AG, Barry MJ (2003) Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility. J Urol 169:1065–1069CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Silva MV, Levy AC, Finkelstein JB et al (2015) Is peri-operative urethral catheter drainage enough? The case for stentless pediatric robotic pyeloplasty. J Pediatr Urol 11(175):e1–e5 Silva MV, Levy AC, Finkelstein JB et al (2015) Is peri-operative urethral catheter drainage enough? The case for stentless pediatric robotic pyeloplasty. J Pediatr Urol 11(175):e1–e5
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Rodriguez AR, Rich MA, Swana HS (2012) Stentless pediatric robotic pyeloplasty. Adv Urol 4(2):57–60CrossRef Rodriguez AR, Rich MA, Swana HS (2012) Stentless pediatric robotic pyeloplasty. Adv Urol 4(2):57–60CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Smith KE, Holmes N, Lieb JI et al (2002) Stented versus nonstented pediatric pyeloplasty: a modern series and review of the literature. J Urol 168:1127–1130CrossRefPubMed Smith KE, Holmes N, Lieb JI et al (2002) Stented versus nonstented pediatric pyeloplasty: a modern series and review of the literature. J Urol 168:1127–1130CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Elmalik K, Chowdhury MM, Capps SN (2008) Ureteric stents in pyeloplasty: a help or a hindrance? J Pediatr Urol 4:275–279CrossRefPubMed Elmalik K, Chowdhury MM, Capps SN (2008) Ureteric stents in pyeloplasty: a help or a hindrance? J Pediatr Urol 4:275–279CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee LC, Kanaroglou N, Gleason JM et al (2015) Impact of drainage technique on pediatric pyeloplasty: comparative analysis of externalized uretero-pyelostomy versus double-J internal stents. Can Urol Assoc J 9:453–457CrossRef Lee LC, Kanaroglou N, Gleason JM et al (2015) Impact of drainage technique on pediatric pyeloplasty: comparative analysis of externalized uretero-pyelostomy versus double-J internal stents. Can Urol Assoc J 9:453–457CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Barbosa JABA, Barayan G, Gridley CM et al (2013) Parent and patient perceptions of robotic vs open urological surgery scars in children. J Urol 190:244–250CrossRefPubMed Barbosa JABA, Barayan G, Gridley CM et al (2013) Parent and patient perceptions of robotic vs open urological surgery scars in children. J Urol 190:244–250CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Boysen WR, Gundeti MS (2017) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population: a review of technique, outcomes, complications, and special considerations in infants. Pediatr Surg Int 33(9):925–935CrossRefPubMed Boysen WR, Gundeti MS (2017) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population: a review of technique, outcomes, complications, and special considerations in infants. Pediatr Surg Int 33(9):925–935CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP): does weight matter?
verfasst von
Ilan Z. Kafka
Stanislav Kocherov
Jawdat Jaber
Boris Chertin
Publikationsdatum
14.01.2019
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Pediatric Surgery International / Ausgabe 3/2019
Print ISSN: 0179-0358
Elektronische ISSN: 1437-9813
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-019-04435-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2019

Pediatric Surgery International 3/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Update Pädiatrie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.