Briony K Varda1, Patricia Cho2, Andrew A Wagner3, Richard S Lee2. 1. Boston Children's Hospital, Department of Urology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: briony.varda@childrens.havard.edu. 2. Boston Children's Hospital, Department of Urology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Department of Urology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In adult urologic oncology the use of robotics has become commonplace; in pediatric urology it is rare. Herein, we describe a collaboration between an adult and a pediatric urologist performing robotic surgery for children and young adults with suspicious or cancerous genitourinary (GU) lesions. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate clinical and oncologic outcomes in children and young adults undergoing robotic surgery for suspicious or cancerous lesions of the GU tract; to describe our collaborative model between an adult and pediatric surgeon at a free-standing children's hospital. DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed all robotic cases performed at our institution from 2014 to 2016 for patients with a GU malignancy or a suspicious mass. The surgeries were performed by a pediatric urologist with robotic experience and a fellowship-trained MIS adult urologist specializing in oncology. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: A total of eight robotic cases were performed: four partial nephrectomies (PN) with retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (LND) (OT 269-338 min, EBL 5-300 mL, LOS 3-6 days), one adrenalectomy with LND (6.4 cm mass; OT 172 min, EBL 5 mL, LOS 3 days), one nephrectomy with pericaval LND (9.8 cm mass; 234 min, EBL 25 mL, LOS 3 days), and two retroperitoneal LNDs (OT 572 and 508 min, EBL 250 and 100, LOS 3 and 4 days). Patient weights ranged from 14 to 79 kg (mean 53.4 kg). There were no major complications (Clavien 3-5). Pathology results for PN included papillary RCC (AJCC pT1aNx) and two cases of segmental cystic renal dysplasia with nephrogenic rests. Bilateral template RPLNDs yielded paratesticular rhabdomyosarcoma (43 nodes; COG low risk group II stage I) and mixed non-seminomatous germ cell tumor (74 nodes; COG stage III). The nephrectomy yielded an undifferentiated sarcoma, low grade; the adrenalectomy favorable-type ganglioneuroma. DISCUSSION: In pediatrics, urologic oncology cases are often managed with open surgery. Our series demonstrates the feasibility of using the robotic approach in carefully selected cases. In doing so, the patient benefits from a minimally invasive surgery, while the surgeon benefits from robotic surgical dexterity. We seamlessly advanced these new techniques through a step-wise collaboration between an adult urologist who routinely performs robotic oncology procedures and a pediatric urologist experienced in robotics for benign conditions. CONCLUSION: In this small series, we safely and effectively adapted adult robotic techniques for genitourinary oncology cases in children and young adults.
BACKGROUND: In adult urologic oncology the use of robotics has become commonplace; in pediatric urology it is rare. Herein, we describe a collaboration between an adult and a pediatric urologist performing robotic surgery for children and young adults with suspicious or cancerous genitourinary (GU) lesions. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate clinical and oncologic outcomes in children and young adults undergoing robotic surgery for suspicious or cancerous lesions of the GU tract; to describe our collaborative model between an adult and pediatric surgeon at a free-standing children's hospital. DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed all robotic cases performed at our institution from 2014 to 2016 for patients with a GU malignancy or a suspicious mass. The surgeries were performed by a pediatric urologist with robotic experience and a fellowship-trained MIS adult urologist specializing in oncology. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: A total of eight robotic cases were performed: four partial nephrectomies (PN) with retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (LND) (OT 269-338 min, EBL 5-300 mL, LOS 3-6 days), one adrenalectomy with LND (6.4 cm mass; OT 172 min, EBL 5 mL, LOS 3 days), one nephrectomy with pericaval LND (9.8 cm mass; 234 min, EBL 25 mL, LOS 3 days), and two retroperitoneal LNDs (OT 572 and 508 min, EBL 250 and 100, LOS 3 and 4 days). Patient weights ranged from 14 to 79 kg (mean 53.4 kg). There were no major complications (Clavien 3-5). Pathology results for PN included papillary RCC (AJCC pT1aNx) and two cases of segmental cystic renal dysplasia with nephrogenic rests. Bilateral template RPLNDs yielded paratesticular rhabdomyosarcoma (43 nodes; COG low risk group II stage I) and mixed non-seminomatous germ cell tumor (74 nodes; COG stage III). The nephrectomy yielded an undifferentiated sarcoma, low grade; the adrenalectomy favorable-type ganglioneuroma. DISCUSSION: In pediatrics, urologic oncology cases are often managed with open surgery. Our series demonstrates the feasibility of using the robotic approach in carefully selected cases. In doing so, the patient benefits from a minimally invasive surgery, while the surgeon benefits from robotic surgical dexterity. We seamlessly advanced these new techniques through a step-wise collaboration between an adult urologist who routinely performs robotic oncology procedures and a pediatric urologist experienced in robotics for benign conditions. CONCLUSION: In this small series, we safely and effectively adapted adult robotic techniques for genitourinary oncology cases in children and young adults.
Authors: Nicholas G Cost; Daniel G DaJusta; Candace F Granberg; Raven M Cooksey; Carrie E Laborde; Jonathan E Wickiser; Patricio C Gargollo Journal: J Endourol Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Rand N Wilcox Vanden Berg; Emily N Bierman; Megan Van Noord; Henry E Rice; Jonathan C Routh Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2015-08-05 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Jesse D Sammon; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Maxine Sun; Praful Ravi; Khurshid R Ghani; Wooju Jeong; Marco Bianchi; Jens Hansen; Paul Perrotte; James O Peabody; Craig G Rogers; Shahrokh F Shariat; Mani Menon; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2013 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.541
Authors: Nicholas G Cost; Krystyna Sawicz-Birkowska; Abdol-Mohammad Kajbafzadeh; Ali Tourchi; Gian Battista Parigi; Gabriela Guillén; W Robert DeFoor; Wojciech Apoznanski Journal: Urology Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Shane M Pearce; Shay Golan; Michael A Gorin; Amy N Luckenbaugh; Stephen B Williams; John F Ward; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Khaled S Hafez; Alon Z Weizer; Phillip M Pierorazio; Mohamad E Allaf; Scott E Eggener Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jeffrey J Leow; Stephen W Reese; Wei Jiang; Stuart R Lipsitz; Joaquim Bellmunt; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Benjamin I Chung; Adam S Kibel; Steven L Chang Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Hsin-Hsiao S Wang; Michael R Abern; Nicholas G Cost; David I Chu; Sherry S Ross; John S Wiener; Jonathan C Routh Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-04-13 Impact factor: 7.450