Literature DB >> 23174238

Pediatric standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a comparative single institution study.

Edward Riachy1, Nicholas G Cost, W Robert Defoor, Pramod P Reddy, Eugene A Minevich, Paul H Noh.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We report our experience and compare the outcomes between standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty to treat ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed of all children who underwent standard or robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction at a single institution from October 2007 to January 2012. Indications for surgery included symptomatic obstruction and abnormal diuretic renal scan. A successful outcome was defined as resolution of clinical symptoms, improvement of hydronephrosis on ultrasound, stable ultrasound with resolution of symptoms or improvement of the drainage curve on diuretic renal scan.
RESULTS: We reviewed 18 patients (median age 8.1 years) who underwent standard and 46 (8.8 years) who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (p = 0.194). Median operative time was 298 minutes (range 145 to 387) for standard and 209 minutes (106 to 540) for robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (p = 0.008). Mean hospitalization was similar between the groups (1 day for standard vs 2 days for robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty, p = 0.246). Narcotic use was similar between the groups. Median followup was 43 months for standard and 22 months for robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (p <0.01). Renal ultrasound showed postoperative improvement of hydronephrosis in 85% and stable disease in 15% of patients following robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty, and improvement in 89.5% and stable disease in 10.5% after standard laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Symptoms resolved in 100% of patients (38 of 38) after robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty and 87.5% of patients (7 of 8) after standard laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty and standard laparoscopic pyeloplasty are effective techniques to correct ureteropelvic junction obstruction, with similar outcomes. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty had a shorter operative time, and its success and complication rates are comparable to standard laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
Copyright © 2013 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23174238     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.008

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


  21 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.  Laparoscopy or retroperitoneoscopy: which is the best approach in pediatric urology?

Authors:  Dimitrios Antoniou; Christos Karetsos
Journal:  Transl Pediatr       Date:  2016-10

3.  Instituting robotic pediatric urologic surgery in the Canadian healthcare system: Evaluating the feasibility and outcomes of robot-assisted pyeloplasty and ureteric reimplantation.

Authors:  Noah Stern; Peter Wang; Sumit Dave
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2021-04       Impact factor: 1.862

4.  Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children less than 20 kg by weight: single-center experience.

Authors:  Arvind Ganpule; Ankush Jairath; Abhishek Singh; Shashikant Mishra; Ravindra Sabnis; Mahesh Desai
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-10-03       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  A prospective randomised comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneoscopic approaches for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in a single surgeon, single centre study.

Authors:  Wael Y Khoder; Raphaela Waidelich; Abdel Majeed Al Ghamdi; Therese Schulz; Armin Becker; Christian G Stief
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-05-22

Review 6.  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

7.  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.

Authors:  Briony K Varda; Ye Wang; Benjamin I Chung; Richard S Lee; Michael P Kurtz; Caleb P Nelson; Steven L Chang
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2018-02-22       Impact factor: 1.830

8.  National Trends in Followup Imaging after Pyeloplasty in Children in the United States.

Authors:  Ryan S Hsi; Sarah K Holt; John L Gore; Thomas S Lendvay; Jonathan D Harper
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2015-04-11       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  National trends of perioperative outcomes and costs for open, laparoscopic and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty.

Authors:  Briony K Varda; Emilie K Johnson; Curtis Clark; Benjamin I Chung; Caleb P Nelson; Steven L Chang
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-10-25       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Pyeloplasty in children: perioperative results and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery.

Authors:  Martin Salö; Tania Sjöberg Altemani; Magnus Anderberg
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 1.827

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.