Literature DB >> 28293866

Hidden incision endoscopic surgery (HIdES) trocar placement for pediatric robotic pyeloplasty: comparison to traditional port placement.

Yaejee H Hong1, W Robert DeFoor2, Pramod P Reddy2, Marion Schulte2, Eugene A Minevich2, Brian A VanderBrink2, Paul H Noh2.   

Abstract

Robotic assisted laparoscopy pyeloplasty (RALP) has been associated with shorter recovery, less pain and improved cosmesis. To minimize visible scars, the hidden incision endoscopic surgery (HIdES) trocar placement has been previously developed. Our aim was to compare outcomes between the HIdES and traditional port placement (TPP) for pediatric RALP. A retrospective study was performed on patients under 15 years of age who underwent RALP at a single institution between August 2011 and November 2013. Patient demographics, intraoperative details, narcotic administration, and complications were reviewed. A total of 49 patients were identified (29 in HIdES, 20 in TPP). There was no difference in median age (p = 0.77) or median height (p = 0.88) between the two groups. Median operative time was 180 min for HIdES and 194 min for TPP (p = 0.27). Eleven patients (11/29, 37.9%) in the HIdES group and fourteen patients (14/20, 70%) in the TPP group received postoperative narcotics (p < 0.05). Median follow-up was 42 months for HIdES and 41 months for TPP (p = 0.96). There were two complications (2/29, 6.9%) with HIdES, and one complication (1/20, 5.0%) with TPP (p = 1.00). The success rates were 96.6% (28/29) for HIdES and 100% (20/20) for TPP (p = 1.00). HIdES trocar placement for pediatric robotic pyeloplasty is a safe and viable alternative to TPP. HIdES is comparable to TPP regarding operative time, narcotic administration, hospital stay, and complication rate, without compromising success.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Pediatrics; Robotic pyeloplasty; Robotic surgical procedures; Urology

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28293866     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-017-0684-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  22 in total

Review 1.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery in pediatric urology: an update.

Authors:  P Casale; Y Kojima
Journal:  Scand J Surg       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.360

2.  Initial comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children.

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

3.  Percutaneous antegrade ureteral stent placement during pediatric robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty.

Authors:  Paul H Noh; W Robert Defoor; Pramod P Reddy
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2011-10-03       Impact factor: 2.942

4.  Outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: a single center experience.

Authors:  Prabhjot Singh; Prem N Dogra; Rajeev Kumar; Narmada P Gupta; Brusabhanu Nayak; Amlesh Seth
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2011-12-22       Impact factor: 2.942

5.  Robot assisted pyeloplasty in the infant-lessons learned.

Authors:  Alexander Kutikov; Michael Nguyen; Thomas Guzzo; Daniel Canter; Pasquale Casale
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 6.  Laparoscopic nephrectomy in children: systematic review of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches.

Authors:  Christina Kim; Kathleen McKay; Steven G Docimo
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2008-10-26       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 7.  The first decade of robotic surgery in children.

Authors:  Thomas P Cundy; Kunal Shetty; James Clark; Tou Pin Chang; Kumuthan Sriskandarajah; Nicholas E Gattas; Azad Najmaldin; Guang-Zhong Yang; Ara Darzi
Journal:  J Pediatr Surg       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.545

8.  Computer assisted pyeloplasty in children: the retroperitoneal approach.

Authors:  L H Olsen; T M Jorgensen
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 9.  Complications of laparoscopic pyeloplasty.

Authors:  Jens J Rassweiler; Dogu Teber; Thomas Frede
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2008-05-10       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 10.  Robotic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population.

Authors:  Pasquale Casale
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.092

View more
  4 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.  Scarless laparoscopic incisions in Pfannenstiel (slip): the first 50 cases using an innovative approach in pediatric robotic surgery.

Authors:  Fulvia Del Conte; Louise Montalva; Liza Ali; Margaux Langeron; Anne-Emmanuelle Colas; Arnaud Bonnard
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2022-05-27

3.  Assistant port is unnecessary for robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: a comparative cohort study.

Authors:  Yavuz Onur Danacioglu; Ferhat Keser; Salih Polat; Bilal Gunaydin; Yusuf Ilker Comez; Mesrur Selcuk Silay
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2022-07-18       Impact factor: 2.003

Review 4.  Current Concepts in Pediatric Robotic Assisted Pyeloplasty.

Authors:  Ramphis A Morales-López; Marcos Pérez-Marchán; Marcos Pérez Brayfield
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2019-01-24       Impact factor: 3.418

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.