Literature DB >> 17706701

Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient: hand sewn anastomosis versus robotic assisted anastomosis--is there a difference?

Israel Franco1, Lori Landau Dyer, Paul Zelkovic.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The most difficult portion of laparoscopic pyeloplasty is the intracorporeal suturing involved in the anastomosis. We identified whether there is a difference in outcomes between a laparoscopic hand sewn anastomosis and a robotic assisted anastomosis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 29 patients who underwent pyeloplasty in the last 30 months, including a robotic assisted procedure in 15, a laparoscopic procedure in 12 and an aborted procedure in 2.
RESULTS: Followup was 10 to 122 weeks (average 41). All surgeries except 1 were deemed successful by resolution of hydronephrosis on ultrasound and symptomatic criteria. Intraoperative time for robotic assisted pyeloplasty was 150 to 290 minutes (average +/- SD 223.1 +/- 46.5). Laparoscopic time was 200 to 285 minutes (average 236.5 +/- 24.1).
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic assisted and laparoscopic anastomosis produced similar outcomes in pediatric patients who underwent pyeloplasty. Overall operative times did not vary significantly between the 2 procedures. There appeared to be no quantifiable benefits between the 2 procedures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17706701     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.06.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  20 in total

1.  Pediatric Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty.

Authors:  Michael V Hollis; Patricia S Cho; Richard N Yu
Journal:  Am J Robot Surg       Date:  2015-12

Review 2.  [Robotic surgery in paediatric urology: current status and perspectives].

Authors:  V Zugor; A Labanaris; A Abdulhak; A Eck; C Wagner; D Porres; J Witt
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 3.  Robotic surgery: review of the latest advances, risks, and outcomes.

Authors:  Mary Downes Gastrich; Joseph Barone; Gloria Bachmann; Mark Anderson; Adrian Balica
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2011-01-21

4.  Laparoscopic versus robot-assisted Nissen fundoplication in an infant pig model.

Authors:  Alexandra Krauss; Thomas Neumuth; Robin Wachowiak; Bernd Donaubauer; Werner Korb; Oliver Burgert; Oliver J Muensterer
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2011-12-27       Impact factor: 1.827

Review 5.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population: a review of technique, outcomes, complications, and special considerations in infants.

Authors:  William R Boysen; Mohan S Gundeti
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 1.827

6.  Hidden incision endoscopic surgery (HIdES) trocar placement for pediatric robotic pyeloplasty: comparison to traditional port placement.

Authors:  Yaejee H Hong; W Robert DeFoor; Pramod P Reddy; Marion Schulte; Eugene A Minevich; Brian A VanderBrink; Paul H Noh
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-03-14

Review 7.  Current status of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in pediatric urology.

Authors:  Sang Hoon Song; Kun Suk Kim
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2014-08-08

8.  How to successfully implement a robotic pediatric surgery program: lessons learned after 96 procedures.

Authors:  Guénolée de Lambert; Laurent Fourcade; Joachim Centi; Fabien Fredon; Karim Braik; Caroline Szwarc; Bernard Longis; Hubert Lardy
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-01-26       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 9.  Surgical options in the management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Authors:  Douglas E Sutherland; Thomas W Jarrett
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.092

10.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic distal ureteral surgery.

Authors:  Megan O Schimpf; Joseph R Wagner
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2009 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.172

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.