Literature DB >> 26052000

Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Multi-institutional experience in infants.

Daniel I Avery1, Katherine W Herbst2, Thomas S Lendvay3, Paul H Noh4, Pankaj Dangle5, Mohan S Gundeti5, Matthew C Steele6, Sean T Corbett6, Craig A Peters7, Christina Kim8.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) has been gaining acceptance among pediatric urologists. Over 300 have been described in the literature, but few studies have evaluated the role of RALP in infants alone.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the operative experience and outcomes of RALP in a cohort of infants treated at multiple institutions across the United States. Our primary aim was to describe the safety and efficacy of RALP within this cohort. We recognize the challenges of performing minimally invasive surgery in small patients. In our paper, we address some technical considerations for the infant population. STUDY
DESIGN: This multi-centered observational study collected data on subjects one year of age or less who underwent RALP between April 2006 and July 2012 at five institutions. The primary outcome was resolution of hydronephrosis, and secondary outcomes included surgical time and complications.
RESULTS: A total of 60 patients (62 procedures) underwent RALP by six surgeons during the study period. All surgeons had > 5 years of experience beyond fellowship training. Mean surgical age was 7.3 months (SD ± 1.7 mo), 56 patients (95%) were diagnosed prenatally, and 59 patients (95%) had follow up imaging. Of these patients, 91% showed resolution or improvement of hydronephrosis. Two patients had recurrent obstruction and required additional surgery. Mean surgical time was 3 hours 52 minutes (SD ± 43 minutes). Seven (11%) patients reported intra-operative or immediate post-operative complications. DISCUSSION: This series found a 91% success rate for reduction or resolution of hydronephrosis, and an 11% complication rate. This is equivalent to modern series comparing open pyeloplasty to pure laparoscopic and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty, which report success rates ranging from 70-96%, and complication rates ranging from 0-24% for open pyeloplasty. We lacked a standardized technique amongst institutions. This was not surprising since there are not established technical benchmarks for this surgery. However, we specified multiple technical considerations for this unique patient population.
CONCLUSION: The advantages of using robot-assistance to perform pyeloplasty in infants remain to be defined. This study cannot make that assessment due to small sample size. Nonetheless, this cohort is the largest robotic pyeloplasty series in infants to date. Seeing an excellent success rate and a low complication rate in this infant cohort is encouraging.
Copyright © 2015 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Minimally invasive; Pyeloplasty; Robotic urologic surgical procedures; Ureteropelvic junction pediatric surgical procedures

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26052000     DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.11.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pediatr Urol        ISSN: 1477-5131            Impact factor:   1.830


  15 in total

Review 1.  Single-Site Laparoscopy and Robotic Surgery in Pediatric Urology.

Authors:  Diana K Bowen; Jason P Van Batavia; Arun K Srinivasan
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Outcomes after pediatric open, laparoscopic, and robotic pyeloplasty at academic institutions.

Authors:  Yvonne Y Chan; Blythe Durbin-Johnson; Renea M Sturm; Eric A Kurzrock
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2016-10-18       Impact factor: 1.830

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  Global trends in paediatric robot-assisted urological surgery: a bibliometric and Progressive Scholarly Acceptance analysis.

Authors:  Thomas P Cundy; Simon J D Harley; Hani J Marcus; Archie Hughes-Hallett; Sanjeev Khurana
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-04-28

Review 5.  Robotically Assisted Surgery in Children-A Perspective.

Authors:  Thomas Franz Krebs; Isabel Schnorr; Pascal Heye; Franz-Martin Häcker
Journal:  Children (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-06

6.  Robotic partial nephrectomy in a child with kidney tumor.

Authors:  Sibel Tiryaki; Burak Turna; Erkan Kısmalı; İbrahim Ulman
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2018-08-28

Review 7.  Artificial Intelligence and Its Impact on Urological Diseases and Management: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature.

Authors:  B M Zeeshan Hameed; Aiswarya V L S Dhavileswarapu; Syed Zahid Raza; Hadis Karimi; Harneet Singh Khanuja; Dasharathraj K Shetty; Sufyan Ibrahim; Milap J Shah; Nithesh Naik; Rahul Paul; Bhavan Prasad Rai; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-04-26       Impact factor: 4.241

8.  The BULT Method for Pediatric Minilaparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Infants: Technique and Results.

Authors:  Barbara Magda Ludwikowski; Michael Botländer; Ricardo González
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2016-05-25       Impact factor: 3.418

Review 9.  Robotic surgery in pediatric urology.

Authors:  Adam Howe; Zachary Kozel; Lane Palmer
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2016-09-06

10.  Transperitoneal Mini-Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Flank Position: A Safe Method for Infants and Young Adults.

Authors:  Beatriz Bañuelos Marco; Tom Florian Fuller; Frank Friedersdorff; Ricardo González; Anja Lingnau
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2018-04-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.