Rajeev Chaudhry1, Heidi A Stephany2. 1. Pediatric Urology, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, 4401 Penn Avenue, 4th Floor Faculty Bldg, Pittsburgh, PA, 15224, USA. 2. Pediatric Urology, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, 4401 Penn Avenue, 4th Floor Faculty Bldg, Pittsburgh, PA, 15224, USA. Heidi.stephany@chp.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The goal of this article is to review the current role of robotic ureteral reimplant in pediatric patients, specifically in regard to indications, outcomes, and complications. RECENT FINDINGS: Robotic ureteral reimplant has become an increasingly popular alternative to open ureteral reimplant with overall published success rates between 77-100%. In recent years, larger, multi-institutional studies have been conducted revealing lower success rates and higher complications than previously reported, but the procedure still remains safe and effective in the hands of skilled surgeons. The robotic approach offers shorter hospital stay, decreased post-operative pain, and improved cosmesis, but also results in higher healthcare costs. Robotic ureteral reimplant serves as a minimally invasive alternative to open ureteral reimplant for the properly selected patient in the hands of experience surgeons.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The goal of this article is to review the current role of robotic ureteral reimplant in pediatric patients, specifically in regard to indications, outcomes, and complications. RECENT FINDINGS: Robotic ureteral reimplant has become an increasingly popular alternative to open ureteral reimplant with overall published success rates between 77-100%. In recent years, larger, multi-institutional studies have been conducted revealing lower success rates and higher complications than previously reported, but the procedure still remains safe and effective in the hands of skilled surgeons. The robotic approach offers shorter hospital stay, decreased post-operative pain, and improved cosmesis, but also results in higher healthcare costs. Robotic ureteral reimplant serves as a minimally invasive alternative to open ureteral reimplant for the properly selected patient in the hands of experience surgeons.
Authors: Sanjay Kasturi; Shailen S Sehgal; Matthew S Christman; Sarah M Lambert; Pasquale Casale Journal: Urology Date: 2011-12-23 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Craig A Peters; Steven J Skoog; Billy S Arant; Hillary L Copp; Jack S Elder; R Guy Hudson; Antoine E Khoury; Armando J Lorenzo; Hans G Pohl; Ellen Shapiro; Warren T Snodgrass; Mireya Diaz Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-07-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Angela M Arlen; Kristin M Broderick; Curtis Travers; Edwin A Smith; James M Elmore; Andrew J Kirsch Journal: J Pediatr Urol Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 1.830
Authors: Hsin-Hsiao S Wang; Rohit Tejwani; Glenn M Cannon; Patricio C Gargollo; John S Wiener; Jonathan C Routh Journal: J Pediatr Urol Date: 2016-04-16 Impact factor: 1.830