L H Olsen1, T M Jørgensen. 1. Department of Urology, Division of Paediatric Urology, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby, 8200 N Aarhus, Denmark. h-olsen@dadlnet.dk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility of robotically assisted retroperitoneoscopic upper pole heminephrectomy with the Da Vinci Surgical System. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fourteen girls (median age 4.9 years, range 0.5-20.2) underwent upper pole heminephrectomy using the retroperitoneal approach with the Da Vinci Surgical System. Prior to all procedures a ureteric catheter was placed. Using a modified access to the retroperitoneum the ureter to the upper pole and the vessels were dissected and ligated. The upper pole was removed by diathermy or ultrasonic scissors. RESULTS: The median operative time was 176 min (range 120-360 min). In two patients, the procedure was converted to an open operation; in one case due to lack of progress, and in the other due to bleeding which could not be handled with the robotically assisted instruments. One patient had the ureteric stump removed due to recurrent infections. In all other patients the peri- and postoperative period was uneventful. CONCLUSION: The robotically assisted system is an excellent tool for minimally invasive surgery in the retroperitoneum, such as pyeloplasty, with its advantages of wrist-like movements of the instruments, magnified three-dimensional view, tremor control and improved ergonomics for the surgeon. Further development of the instruments is required before the resection of a non-functioning upper pole can be included in the spectrum of indications.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility of robotically assisted retroperitoneoscopic upper pole heminephrectomy with the Da Vinci Surgical System. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fourteen girls (median age 4.9 years, range 0.5-20.2) underwent upper pole heminephrectomy using the retroperitoneal approach with the Da Vinci Surgical System. Prior to all procedures a ureteric catheter was placed. Using a modified access to the retroperitoneum the ureter to the upper pole and the vessels were dissected and ligated. The upper pole was removed by diathermy or ultrasonic scissors. RESULTS: The median operative time was 176 min (range 120-360 min). In two patients, the procedure was converted to an open operation; in one case due to lack of progress, and in the other due to bleeding which could not be handled with the robotically assisted instruments. One patient had the ureteric stump removed due to recurrent infections. In all other patients the peri- and postoperative period was uneventful. CONCLUSION: The robotically assisted system is an excellent tool for minimally invasive surgery in the retroperitoneum, such as pyeloplasty, with its advantages of wrist-like movements of the instruments, magnified three-dimensional view, tremor control and improved ergonomics for the surgeon. Further development of the instruments is required before the resection of a non-functioning upper pole can be included in the spectrum of indications.