OBJECTIVE: To report our analysis of complications on pediatric robotic urologic procedures. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed for all robotic surgeries by pediatric urologists at a single pediatric institution, from the start of the robotic surgery program in February 2009 through February 2013. Data included patient demographics, intraoperative details, outcomes, and complications (Clavien system). RESULTS: The analysis included 136 patients. There were 10 different types of procedures performed by 3 pediatric urologists. There were no intraoperative complications, robotic malfunctions, conversions to open or laparoscopic surgery, or mortalities. There were 11 total complications (8.1%): 2 grade I (1.5%), 7 grade II (5.1%), and 2 grade IIIb (1.5%). Complications included ileus in 2 patients (1.5%), port site infection in 2 (1.5%), urinary leak in 2 (1.5%), urinary retention in 2 (1.5%), urinary tract infection in 2 (1.5%), and stent migration in 1 (0.7%). The complication rate was in 3 of 10 infants (30%) and 8 of 126 noninfants (6.3%), P = .035. However, grade I, II, and IIIb complication rates were not significantly higher in infants vs noninfants, P = 1, .084, and .142, respectively. There was no difference in complication rates between the 3 surgeons. CONCLUSION: Pediatric robotic urologic procedures are safely performed with a relatively low complication rate and a low incidence of additional interventions owing to complications. Ongoing use of robotic technology in the pediatric population can be supported. Further reports are needed to validate our findings.
OBJECTIVE: To report our analysis of complications on pediatric robotic urologic procedures. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed for all robotic surgeries by pediatric urologists at a single pediatric institution, from the start of the robotic surgery program in February 2009 through February 2013. Data included patient demographics, intraoperative details, outcomes, and complications (Clavien system). RESULTS: The analysis included 136 patients. There were 10 different types of procedures performed by 3 pediatric urologists. There were no intraoperative complications, robotic malfunctions, conversions to open or laparoscopic surgery, or mortalities. There were 11 total complications (8.1%): 2 grade I (1.5%), 7 grade II (5.1%), and 2 grade IIIb (1.5%). Complications included ileus in 2 patients (1.5%), port site infection in 2 (1.5%), urinary leak in 2 (1.5%), urinary retention in 2 (1.5%), urinary tract infection in 2 (1.5%), and stent migration in 1 (0.7%). The complication rate was in 3 of 10 infants (30%) and 8 of 126 noninfants (6.3%), P = .035. However, grade I, II, and IIIb complication rates were not significantly higher in infants vs noninfants, P = 1, .084, and .142, respectively. There was no difference in complication rates between the 3 surgeons. CONCLUSION: Pediatric robotic urologic procedures are safely performed with a relatively low complication rate and a low incidence of additional interventions owing to complications. Ongoing use of robotic technology in the pediatric population can be supported. Further reports are needed to validate our findings.