nach oben

World Journal of Urology

Erschienen in:

10.09.2019 | Topic Paper

Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in infants and children: is it superior to conventional laparoscopy?

verfasst von: Ciro Andolfi, Brittany Adamic, Jerry Oommen, Mohan S. Gundeti

Erschienen in: World Journal of Urology | Ausgabe 8/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction

Open pyeloplasty (OP) has been the first-line treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) since it was first described by Anderson and Hynes. The use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) to treat UPJO in the pediatric population has increased in recent years, due to decreased morbidity and shorter recovery times. Recently, robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) has seen a steady expansion. Unlike laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP), RALP comes with a more manageable learning curve aided by specialized technological advantages such as high-resolution three-dimensional view, tremor filtration with motion scaling, and highly dexterous wrist-like instruments. With this review, we aim to highlight the trend toward robotic pyeloplasty over laparoscopy and current available evidence on outcomes.

Methods

We systematically searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases, and we critically reviewed the available literature on the use of laparoscopy and robotic technology in pediatric patients with UPJO.

Results

Overall, we selected 19 original articles and 5 meta-analyses. The available literature showed that the robotic approach to the UPJO allowed for decreased operative times, shorter length of hospital stay, lower complication rates, with success rates comparable to LP. Conflicting results persist regarding robotic platform and equipment costs.

Conclusion

While laparoscopy requires advanced skills for complex reconstructive procedures, such as pyeloplasty, robot-assisted surgery offers the valuable potential of making MIS more accessible to these types of procedure. Robotic technology has contributed to shortening the learning curve by acting as a bridge between open and endoscopic approach. There is still a strong need for higher quality evidence in the form of prospective observational studies and clinical trials, as well as further cost-effectiveness analyses. As robotic surgical technology spreads, future systems will be developed, offering smaller and more flexible tools, allowing enhanced applications on pediatric patients.

Anderson JC, Hynes W (1949) Retrocaval ureter; a case diagnosed pre-operatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation. Br J Urol 21(3):209–214CrossRef

Liu DB, Ellimoottil C, Flum AS, Casey JT, Gong EM (2014) Contemporary national comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pediatric pyeloplasty. J Pediatr Urol 10(4):610–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.06.010 CrossRefPubMed

Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJ (2015) Births in the United States, 2014. NCHS Data Brief 216:1–8

Varda BK, Wang Y, Chung BI, Lee RS, Kurtz MP, Nelson CP et al (2018) Has the robot caught up? National trends in utilization, perioperative outcomes, and cost for open, laparoscopic, and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty in the United States from 2003 to 2015. J Pediatr Urol 14(4):336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2017.12.010 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Mei H, Pu J, Yang C, Zhang H, Zheng L, Tong Q (2011) Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 25(5):727–736. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0544(e1–e8) CrossRefPubMed

Huang Y, Wu Y, Shan W, Zeng L, Huang L (2015) An updated meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. Int J Clin Exp Med 8(4):4922–4931PubMedPubMedCentral

Cascio S, Tien A, Chee W, Tan HL (2007) Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in children younger than 2 years. J Urol 177(1):335–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.145 CrossRefPubMed

Tan HL (1999) Laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty in children. J Urol 162(3 Pt 2):1045–1047 (discussion 8) CrossRef

Tan HL (2001) Laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty in children using needlescopic instrumentation. Urol Clin N Am 28(1):43–51 (viii) CrossRef

10.

Tan HL, Roberts JP (1996) Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in children: preliminary results. Br J Urol 77(6):909–913CrossRef

11.

Sukumar S, Roghmann F, Sood A, Abdo A, Menon M, Sammon JD et al (2014) Correction of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: national trends and comparative effectiveness in operative outcomes. J Endourol 28(5):592–598. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0618 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM (1993) Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 150(6):1795–1799CrossRef

13.

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):368–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2009.02.202 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Yeung CK, Tam YH, Sihoe JD, Lee KH, Liu KW (2001) Retroperitoneoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction in infants and children. BJU Int 87(6):509–513CrossRef

15.

Peters CA (2004) Robotically assisted surgery in pediatric urology. Urol Clin N Am 31(4):743–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2004.06.007 CrossRef

16.

Murphy D, Challacombe B, Olsburgh J, Calder F, Mamode N, Khan MS et al (2008) Ablative and reconstructive robotic-assisted laparoscopic renal surgery. Int J Clin Pract 62(11):1703–1708. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01563.x CrossRefPubMed

17.

Monn MF, Bahler CD, Schneider EB, Whittam BM, Misseri R, Rink RC et al (2013) Trends in robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric patients. Urology 81(6):1336–1341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.01.025 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Cundy TP, Harling L, Hughes-Hallett A, Mayer EK, Najmaldin AS, Athanasiou T et al (2014) Meta-analysis of robot-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children. BJU Int 114(4):582–594CrossRef

19.

Franco I, Dyer LL, Zelkovic P (2007) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient: hand sewn anastomosis versus robotic assisted anastomosis—is there a difference? J Urol 178(4 Pt 1):1483–1486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.06.012 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Ganpule A, Jairath A, Singh A, Mishra S, Sabnis R, Desai M (2015) Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children less than 20 kg by weight: single-center experience. World J Urol 33(11):1867–1873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1694-1 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Gatti JM, Amstutz SP, Bowlin PR, Stephany HA, Murphy JP (2017) Laparoscopic vs open pyeloplasty in children: results of a randomized, prospective, controlled trial. J Urol 197(3 Pt 1):792–797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.10.056 CrossRefPubMed

22.

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):683–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00183-7(discussion 7) CrossRefPubMed

23.

Patel A, Pickhardt MW, Littlejohn N, Zamilpa I, Rettiganti M, Luo C et al (2016) Shortened operative time for pediatric robotic versus laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Can J Urol 23(3):8308–8311PubMed

24.

Riachy E, Cost NG, Defoor WR, Reddy PP, Minevich EA, Noh PH (2013) Pediatric standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a comparative single institution study. J Urol 189(1):283–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.008 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Kim S, Canter D, Leone N, Patel R, Casale P (2008) A comparative study between laparoscopic and robotically assisted pyeloplasty in the pediatric population. J Urol 179:357CrossRef

26.

Silay MS, Spinoit AF, Undre S, Fiala V, Tandogdu Z, Garmanova T et al (2016) Global minimally invasive pyeloplasty study in children: results from the Pediatric Urology Expert Group of the European Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists working party. J Pediatr Urol 12(4):229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.04.007(e1–7) CrossRefPubMed

27.

Song SH, Lee C, Jung J, Kim SJ, Park S, Park H et al (2017) A comparative study of pediatric open pyeloplasty, laparoscopy-assisted extracorporeal pyeloplasty, and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. PLoS O ne 12(4):e0175026. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175026 CrossRef

28.

Subotic U, Rohard I, Weber DM, Gobet R, Moehrlen U, Gonzalez R (2012) A minimal invasive surgical approach for children of all ages with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Pediatr Urol 8(4):354–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2011.07.004 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Ansari MS, Mandhani A, Singh P, Srivastava A, Kumar A, Kapoor R (2008) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: long-term outcome. Int J Urol 15(10):881–884. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2008.02139.x CrossRefPubMed

30.

Maheshwari R, Ansari MS, Mandhani A, Srivastava A, Kapoor R (2010) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric patients: the SGPGI experience. Indian J Urol 26(1):36–40. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.60441 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Psooy K, Pike JG, Leonard MP (2003) Long-term followup of pediatric dismembered pyeloplasty: how long is long enough? J Urol 169(5):1809–1812. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000055040.19568.ea(discussion 12; author reply 12) CrossRefPubMed

32.

Salo M, Sjoberg Altemani T, Anderberg M (2016) Pyeloplasty in children: perioperative results and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery. Pediatr Surg Int 32(6):599–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-016-3869-2 CrossRefPubMed

33.

Neheman A, Kord E, Zisman A, Darawsha AE, Noh PH (2018) Comparison of robotic pyeloplasty and standard laparoscopic pyeloplasty in infants: a bi-institutional study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 28(4):467–470. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2017.0262 CrossRefPubMed

34.

Avery DI, Herbst KW, Lendvay TS, Noh PH, Dangle P, Gundeti MS et al (2015) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: multi-institutional experience in infants. J Pediatr Urol 11(3):139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.11.025(e1–5) CrossRefPubMed

35.

Bansal D, Cost NG, DeFoor WR Jr, Reddy PP, Minevich EA, Vanderbrink BA et al (2014) Infant robotic pyeloplasty: comparison with an open cohort. J Pediatr Urol 10(2):380–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2013.10.016 CrossRefPubMed

36.

Kutikov A, Resnick M, Casale P (2006) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the infant younger than 6 months—is it technically possible? J Urol 175(4):1477–1479. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00673-7(discussion 9) CrossRefPubMed

37.

Turner RM 2nd, Fox JA, Tomaszewski JJ, Schneck FX, Docimo SG, Ost MC (2013) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in infants. J Urol 189(4):1503–1507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.10.067 CrossRefPubMed

38.

Braga LH, Lorenzo AJ, Skeldon S, Dave S, Bagli DJ, Khoury AE et al (2007) Failed pyeloplasty in children: comparative analysis of retrograde endopyelotomy versus redo pyeloplasty. J Urol 178(6):2571–2575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.050(discussion 5) CrossRefPubMed

39.

Ahn JJ, Shapiro ME, Ellison JS, Lendvay TS (2017) Pediatric robot-assisted redo pyeloplasty with buccal mucosa graft: a novel technique. Urology 101:56–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.12.036 CrossRefPubMed

40.

Alhazmi HH (2018) Redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty among children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Ann 10(4):347–353. https://doi.org/10.4103/UA.UA_100_18 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Casella DP, Fox JA, Schneck FX, Cannon GM, Ost MC (2013) Cost analysis of pediatric robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol 189(3):1083–1086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.259 CrossRefPubMed

42.

Light A, Karthikeyan S, Maruthan S, Elhage O, Danuser H, Dasgupta P (2018) Peri-operative outcomes and complications after laparoscopic vs robot-assisted dismembered pyeloplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 122(2):181–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14170 CrossRefPubMed

43.

Lee LC, Kanaroglou N, Gleason JM, Pippi Salle JL, Bagli DJ, Koyle MA 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(7–8):E453–E457. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2697 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Rodriguez AR, Rich MA, Swana HS (2012) Stentless pediatric robotic pyeloplasty. Ther Adv Urol 4(2):57–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1756287211434927 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Silva MV, Levy AC, Finkelstein JB, Van Batavia JP, Casale P (2015) Is peri-operative urethral catheter drainage enough? The case for stentless pediatric robotic pyeloplasty. J Pediatr Urol 11(4):175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2015.06.003(e1–5) CrossRefPubMed

46.

Yiee JH, Baskin LS (2011) Use of internal stent, external transanastomotic stent or no stent during pediatric pyeloplasty: a decision tree cost-effectiveness analysis. J Urol 185(2):673–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.09.118 CrossRefPubMed

47.

Ferroni MC, Lyon TD, Rycyna KJ, Dwyer ME, Schneck FX, Ost MC et al (2016) The role of prophylactic antibiotics after minimally invasive pyeloplasty with ureteral stent placement in children. Urology 89:107–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.11.035 CrossRefPubMed

48.

Bennett WE Jr, Whittam BM, Szymanski KM, Rink RC, Cain MP, Carroll AE (2017) Validated cost comparison of open vs. robotic pyeloplasty in American children's hospitals. J Robot Surg 11(2):201–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0645-1 CrossRefPubMed

49.

Andolfi C, Umanskiy K (2017) Mastering robotic surgery: where does the learning curve lead us? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 27(5):470–474. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2016.0641 CrossRefPubMed

50.

Chan YY, Durbin-Johnson B, Sturm RM, Kurzrock EA (2017) Outcomes after pediatric open, laparoscopic, and robotic pyeloplasty at academic institutions. J Pediatr Urol 13(1):49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.08.029(e1–e6) CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in infants and children: is it superior to conventional laparoscopy?
verfasst von: Ciro Andolfi
Brittany Adamic
Jerry Oommen
Mohan S. Gundeti
Publikationsdatum: 10.09.2019
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: World Journal of Urology / Ausgabe 8/2020
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02943-z

Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie

Ambulantisierung: Erste Erfahrungen mit dem Hybrid-DRG

02.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Hybrid-DRG-Verordnung soll dazu führen, dass mehr chirurgische Eingriffe ambulant durchgeführt werden, wie es in anderen Ländern schon länger üblich ist. Die gleiche Vergütung im ambulanten und stationären Sektor hatten Niedergelassene schon lange gefordert. Aber die Umsetzung bereitet ihnen doch Kopfzerbrechen.

Sind Frauen die fähigeren Ärzte?

30.04.2024 Gendermedizin Nachrichten

Patienten, die von Ärztinnen behandelt werden, dürfen offenbar auf bessere Therapieergebnisse hoffen als Patienten von Ärzten. Besonders gilt das offenbar für weibliche Kranke, wie eine Studie zeigt.

Harninkontinenz: Netz-Op. erfordert über lange Zeit intensive Nachsorge

30.04.2024 Harninkontinenz Nachrichten

Frauen mit Belastungsinkontinenz oder Organprolaps sind nach einer Netz-Operation keineswegs beschwerdefrei. Vielmehr scheint die Krankheitslast weiterhin hoch zu sein, sogar höher als von harninkontinenten Frauen, die sich nicht haben operieren lassen.

Adjuvante Immuntherapie verlängert Leben bei RCC

25.04.2024 Nierenkarzinom Nachrichten

Nun gibt es auch Resultate zum Gesamtüberleben: Eine adjuvante Pembrolizumab-Therapie konnte in einer Phase-3-Studie das Leben von Menschen mit Nierenzellkarzinom deutlich verlängern. Die Sterberate war im Vergleich zu Placebo um 38% geringer.

Update Urologie

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

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2020

The global burden of urinary bladder cancer: an update

Cost, training and simulation models for robotic-assisted surgery in pediatric urology

Overactive bladder symptoms in patients undergoing rigid and flexible cystoscopy

The sky is clear: robotic surgery is now a valuable player in pediatric urology practice