Literature DB >> 26433387

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

Arvind Ganpule1, Ankush Jairath2, Abhishek Singh3, Shashikant Mishra4, Ravindra Sabnis5, Mahesh Desai6.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children less than 20 kg by weight.
METHODS: Nineteen patients undergoing RP and twenty-five LP under 20 kg by weight were compared retrospectively with respect to demographics and operative, postoperative, and follow-up data. For all cases, a lateral transperitoneal approach was used and all anastomoses were stented. Success was defined as the resolution of preoperative symptoms and hydronephrosis postoperatively. If either case is not fulfilled, a renogram was obtained postoperatively. Student's t test was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: Forty-four patients underwent forty-seven pyeloplasties (19 RP and 25 LP), with three patients undergoing bilateral simultaneous laparoscopic procedure with mean age of 2.7 and 2.4 years in RP and LP, respectively. The robotic procedures were superior in terms of shorter mean hospital stay by one and half day on an average. Minimum time taken for RP was 60 min, while for LP it was 90 min. Both procedures were comparable in terms of complication rate, success rate as well as operating time.
CONCLUSIONS: This comparative study confirms the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of robotic pyeloplasty in infants and toddlers. The obvious advantage is being shorter hospital stay. Further prospective studies will be needed to show its superiority over LP.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Laparoscopic pyeloplasty; Pelvic ureteric junction obstruction; Robotic pyeloplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26433387     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-015-1694-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  12 in total

Review 1.  Role of robotics in laparoscopic urologic surgery.

Authors:  Louis Eichel; Thomas E Ahlering; Ralph V Clayman
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.241

2.  Malfunction of the da Vinci robotic system in urology.

Authors:  Cheng-Che Chen; Yen-Chuan Ou; Cheng-Kuang Yang; Kun-Yuan Chiu; Shian-Shiang Wang; Chung-Kuang Su; Hao-Chung Ho; Chen-Li Cheng; Chuan-Shu Chen; Jian-Ri Lee; Wen-Min Chen
Journal:  Int J Urol       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 3.369

3.  Evaluation of robotic-assisted laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children: single-surgeon experience.

Authors:  P Murthy; J A Cohn; M S Gundeti
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.891

4.  Pediatric fluid and electrolyte therapy.

Authors:  Rachel S Meyers
Journal:  J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2009-10

5.  Robotic computer-assisted pyeloplasty versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty.

Authors:  Erik S Weise; Howard N Winfield
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 6.  Functional outcomes after pure laparoscopic or robot-assisted pyeloplasty.

Authors:  Karim Ferhi; Morgan Rouprêt; Vincent Misraï; Raphaele Renard-Penna; Emmanuel Chartier-Kastler; François Richard; Christophe Vaessen
Journal:  Actas Urol Esp       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 0.994

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

Authors:  Edward Riachy; Nicholas G Cost; W Robert Defoor; Pramod P Reddy; Eugene A Minevich; Paul H Noh
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children.

Authors:  Harprit Singh; Arvind Ganpule; Vineet Malhotra; T Manohar; V Muthu; Mahesh Desai
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.942

9.  Single-center comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, Acucise endopyelotomy, and open pyeloplasty.

Authors:  D Duane Baldwin; Jennifer A Dunbar; Nancy Wells; Elspeth M McDougall
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 10.  An up-to-date overview of minimally invasive treatment methods in ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Authors:  Rahmi Gokhan Ekin; Orcun Celik; Yusuf Ozlem Ilbey
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2015-06-18
View more
  1 in total

1.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction in the paediatric population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Samih Taktak; Oliver Llewellyn; Mohamed Aboelsoud; Shahab Hajibandeh; Shahin Hajibandeh
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2019-03-22
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.