PURPOSE: Ureterocalicostomy is a potential option in patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction and significant lower pole calicectasis. It is often reserved for patients with a failed pyeloplasty and a minimal pelvis, or patients with an exaggerated intrarenal pelvis. We present our technique of robotic ureterocalicostomy in the pediatric population as a primary modality for an exaggerated intrarenal collecting system not amenable to standard dismembered pyeloplasty, and for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine patients 3 to 15 years old (mean age 6.5) underwent transperitoneal robotic ureterocalicostomy for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Six of the patients had recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction after primary pyeloplasty performed elsewhere. The remaining 3 patients had an exaggerated intrarenal collecting system with minimal or no appreciable renal pelvis for reconstruction. Outcome measures included operative time, length of hospital stay and postoperative ultrasound at 3 months, as well as resolution of obstruction by diuretic radionuclide imaging at 6 and 12 months of followup. RESULTS: Mean operative time was 168 minutes (range 102 to 204) for the ureterocalicostomy portion. Two patients underwent concomitant pyelolithotomy, with 14 and 21 minutes added to the operative time. Mean hospital stay was 21 hours (range 17 to 26). Diuretic radionuclide imaging, which was performed in all patients at 6 and 12 months postoperatively, revealed no evidence of obstruction in any patient. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic ureterocalicostomy is a viable and technically feasible treatment option for patients with recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction, or patients with difficult intrarenal ureteropelvic junctions.
PURPOSE: Ureterocalicostomy is a potential option in patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction and significant lower pole calicectasis. It is often reserved for patients with a failed pyeloplasty and a minimal pelvis, or patients with an exaggerated intrarenal pelvis. We present our technique of robotic ureterocalicostomy in the pediatric population as a primary modality for an exaggerated intrarenal collecting system not amenable to standard dismembered pyeloplasty, and for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine patients 3 to 15 years old (mean age 6.5) underwent transperitoneal robotic ureterocalicostomy for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Six of the patients had recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction after primary pyeloplasty performed elsewhere. The remaining 3 patients had an exaggerated intrarenal collecting system with minimal or no appreciable renal pelvis for reconstruction. Outcome measures included operative time, length of hospital stay and postoperative ultrasound at 3 months, as well as resolution of obstruction by diuretic radionuclide imaging at 6 and 12 months of followup. RESULTS: Mean operative time was 168 minutes (range 102 to 204) for the ureterocalicostomy portion. Two patients underwent concomitant pyelolithotomy, with 14 and 21 minutes added to the operative time. Mean hospital stay was 21 hours (range 17 to 26). Diuretic radionuclide imaging, which was performed in all patients at 6 and 12 months postoperatively, revealed no evidence of obstruction in any patient. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic ureterocalicostomy is a viable and technically feasible treatment option for patients with recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction, or patients with difficult intrarenal ureteropelvic junctions.