Shang-Jen Chang1,2, Chun-Kai Hsu1,2, Cheng-Hsing Hsieh1,2, Stephen Shei-Dei Yang3,4. 1. Division of Urology, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, The Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, 289 Chienkuo Road, Xindian, New Taipei City, 231, Taiwan. 2. School of Medicine, Buddhist Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan. 3. Division of Urology, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, The Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, 289 Chienkuo Road, Xindian, New Taipei City, 231, Taiwan. krissygnet@gmail.com. 4. School of Medicine, Buddhist Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan. krissygnet@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This manuscript is mainly to systemically review the published reports that compared the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted (RP) versus open pyeloplasty (OP) in children with ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). METHODS: We did a systemic search in the PubMed(®) for all randomized controlled trials or comparative studies that compared the surgical results of robotic versus open pyeloplasty in children with UPJO. Two of the authors (Hsu and Chang) independently did the literature search, quality assessment, and data extraction. The obtained data were analyzed with Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager (RevMan(®), version 5.3). The end points of the analysis and review included age, operative time, hospital stay, costs, complications, and success rate. RESULTS: In total, seven comparative trials and three studies using national database met the criteria that comprised 20,691 (RP:OP = 1956:18,735) patients in the meta-analysis. Most studies reported median value of patient age, operative time, and hospital stay. Only a small proportion of studies could be included for meta-analysis. The enrolled trials revealed that RP was more frequently performed in older children, required longer operative time, and shorter hospital stay. The postoperative success rate was comparable (RR = 0.99, 95 CI 0.94-1.04). Comparing with OP, there was a significant higher complication rate (RR = 1.29, 95 CI 1.10-1.51) and higher costs in the RP group. CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty may be a promising alternative minimal invasive surgery for UPJO in children if the higher complication rates and higher costs in the RP can be overcome in the near future.
OBJECTIVE: This manuscript is mainly to systemically review the published reports that compared the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted (RP) versus open pyeloplasty (OP) in children with ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). METHODS: We did a systemic search in the PubMed(®) for all randomized controlled trials or comparative studies that compared the surgical results of robotic versus open pyeloplasty in children with UPJO. Two of the authors (Hsu and Chang) independently did the literature search, quality assessment, and data extraction. The obtained data were analyzed with Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager (RevMan(®), version 5.3). The end points of the analysis and review included age, operative time, hospital stay, costs, complications, and success rate. RESULTS: In total, seven comparative trials and three studies using national database met the criteria that comprised 20,691 (RP:OP = 1956:18,735) patients in the meta-analysis. Most studies reported median value of patient age, operative time, and hospital stay. Only a small proportion of studies could be included for meta-analysis. The enrolled trials revealed that RP was more frequently performed in older children, required longer operative time, and shorter hospital stay. The postoperative success rate was comparable (RR = 0.99, 95 CI 0.94-1.04). Comparing with OP, there was a significant higher complication rate (RR = 1.29, 95 CI 1.10-1.51) and higher costs in the RP group. CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty may be a promising alternative minimal invasive surgery for UPJO in children if the higher complication rates and higher costs in the RP can be overcome in the near future.
Authors: Courtney K Rowe; Michael W Pierce; Katherine C Tecci; Constance S Houck; James Mandell; Alan B Retik; Hiep T Nguyen Journal: J Endourol Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: David S Yee; Allan M Shanberg; Barry P Duel; Esequiel Rodriguez; Louis Eichel; Deepak Rajpoot Journal: Urology Date: 2006-02-28 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Thomas P Cundy; Leanne Harling; Archie Hughes-Hallett; Erik K Mayer; Azad S Najmaldin; Thanos Athanasiou; Guang-Zhong Yang; Ara Darzi Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: M Francesca Monn; Clinton D Bahler; Eric B Schneider; Benjamin M Whittam; Rosalia Misseri; Richard C Rink; Chandru P Sundaram Journal: Urology Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 2.649
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
Authors: D Bansal; N G Cost; W R DeFoor; P P Reddy; E A Minevich; B A Vanderbrink; S Alam; C A Sheldon; P H Noh Journal: J Pediatr Urol Date: 2013-11-09 Impact factor: 1.830
Authors: Judith Buentzel; Carmen Straube; Judith Heinz; Christian Roever; Alexander Beham; Andreas Emmert; Marc Hinterthaner; Bernhard C Danner; Alexander Emmert Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 1.817