| Literature DB >> 31192176 |
Thomas Blanc1,2,3, Jules Kohaut1,2, Caroline Elie4, Pauline Clermidi1,2, Luca Pio1,2, Caroline Harte2,5, Enrico Brönnimann1,2, Nathalie Botto1,2, Véronique Rousseau1,2, Pascale Sonigo2,6, Christophe Vaessen2,7, Henri Lottmann1,2, Yves Aigrain1,2.
Abstract
Introduction stating the aim of the study: Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) is gaining acceptance among pediatric urologists. Few studies have evaluated the retroperitoneal approach for RALP. We share our experience from the first 2 years of a multidisciplinary pediatric robotic program in our center. Patients (or Materials) andEntities:
Keywords: children; pyeloplasty; retroperitoneal; robotic surgery; ureteropelvic junction obstruction
Year: 2019 PMID: 31192176 PMCID: PMC6547808 DOI: 10.3389/fped.2019.00209
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pediatr ISSN: 2296-2360 Impact factor: 3.418
Figure 1Our strategy for UPJ Obstruction.
Figure 2Port placement for left lateral retroperitoneal RAL pyeloplasty.
Figure 3Peritoneal reflection (arrowheads).
Demographics, indication for surgery and surgical variables, expressed as the medians and interquartile range (25th; 75th percentiles).
| ( | |
| 7.9 (5.1–13.8) | |
| Male | 19 (51%) |
| Female | 18 (49%) |
| 23 (17–41) | |
| Pain | 25 (68%) |
| UTI | 3 (8%) |
| Pre natal hydronephrosis | 5 (13%) |
| Post natal hydronephrosis | 3 (8%) |
| High blood pressure | 1 (3%) |
| Right | 14 (38%) |
| Left | 23 (62%) |
| 32 (27–39) | |
| MAG3 renal scan | 36 (97%) |
| Magnetic resonance | 9 (25%) |
| No | 19 (51%) |
| Yes | 18 (49%) |
| One blind-ended JJ stent | 18 (52%) |
| Black-Star® magnetic stent | 17 (48%) |
| 2 (5%) | |
| 33 (29–48) | |
| 79 (68–90) | |
| 151 (136–182) | |
| 0 | |
| 1 (1–1) | |
| 14 | |
| Loss of function (<3%) | 0 |
| Gain of function (>3%) | 9 (64%) |
| 9 (5–13) | |
| Grade I | 0 |
| Grade II | 8 |
| Grade IIIb | 0 |
| 2 | |
| 0 | |
Figure 4(A) Set-up time (minutes) of the consecutive cases of retroperitoneal RAL in chronological order. (B) Cumulative sum (CUSUM) chart for set-up time plotted against case number.
Figure 5Anastomosis time (minutes) of the consecutive cases of retroperitoneal RAL in chronological order.
Figure 6Console time (minutes) of the consecutive cases of retroperitoneal RAL in chronological order.
Figure 7Pre- and post-operative evolution of the renal pelvis dilatation (mm).
Factors associated with console time (≥150 min, n = 36 surgeries).
| 5.1 (4.6–8.4) | 9.7 (6.3–13.6) | 0.11 | |
| 19 (16–27) | 31 (22–48) | 0.03 | |
| Symptomatic (1) | 12 (71%) | 15 (79%) | 0.71 |
| Asymptomatic (2) | 5 (29%) | 4 (21%) | |
| 7 (41%) | 10 (53%) | 0.49 | |
| 0.43 | |||
| Right-sided procedures | 5 (29%) | 8 (42%) | |
| Left-sided procedures | 12 (71%) | 11 (58%) | |
Expressed as the medians and interquartile range (25th; 75th percentiles).
(1) Pain, urinary tract infection.
(2) Pre natal hydronephrosis, post natal hydronephrosis, high blood pressure.
Statistically significant.