Pediatric Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty.

Michael V Hollis, Patricia S Cho, Richard N Yu
Author Information
  1. Michael V Hollis: Department of Urology, Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
  2. Patricia S Cho: Department of Urology, Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
  3. Richard N Yu: Department of Urology, Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

Abstract

The laparoscopic approach to the pyeloplasty procedure has proven to be safe and effective in the pediatric population. Multiple studies have revealed outcomes comparable to the open approach. However, a major drawback to laparoscopy is the technical challenge of precise suturing in the small working space in children. The advantages of robotic surgery when compared to conventional laparoscopy have been well established and include motion scaling, enhanced magnification, 3-dimensional stereoscopic vision, and improved instrument dexterity. As a result, surgeons with limited laparoscopic experience are able to more readily acquire robotic surgical skills. Limitations of the robotic platform include its high costs for acquisition and maintenance, as well as the need for additional robotic surgical training. In this article, we review the current status of the robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty, including a brief history, comparative outcomes, cost considerations, and training.

Keywords

References

  1. J Urol. 1993 Mar;149(3):453-6 [PMID: 8437245]
  2. J Urol. 1996 Mar;155(3):1070-3 [PMID: 8583567]
  3. Eur Urol. 2008 Oct;54(4):802-3 [PMID: 18514384]
  4. J Urol. 2013 Mar;189(3):1083-6 [PMID: 23017518]
  5. J Pediatr Urol. 2014 Oct;10(5):869-74 [PMID: 24661900]
  6. Urology. 1995 Jul;46(1):89-91 [PMID: 7604483]
  7. J Endourol. 2012 Jul;26(7):871-7 [PMID: 22283146]
  8. Eur Urol. 1993;24(1):84-8 [PMID: 8365447]
  9. J Pediatr Urol. 2014 Apr;10 (2):380-5 [PMID: 24268880]
  10. J Pediatr Urol. 2012 Aug;8(4):354-8 [PMID: 21802371]
  11. J Endourol. 2012 Mar;26(3):249-53 [PMID: 22191495]
  12. Curr Opin Urol. 2009 Jan;19(1):65-8 [PMID: 19057219]
  13. J Urol. 2012 Sep;188(3):932-7 [PMID: 22819409]
  14. Ann Surg. 2010 Jun;251(6):1181-5 [PMID: 20485133]
  15. Pediatr Nephrol. 1995 Aug;9(4):503-9 [PMID: 7577420]
  16. J Endourol. 2007 Oct;21(10):1137-40 [PMID: 17949311]
  17. Urology. 2008 Nov;72(5):1068-72 [PMID: 18313121]
  18. J Urol. 2007 Nov;178(5):2137-41; discussion 2141 [PMID: 17870122]
  19. Curr Opin Urol. 2001 May;11(3):309-20 [PMID: 11371786]
  20. Urology. 2011 Jun;77(6):1450-4 [PMID: 21256576]
  21. J Urol. 2004 Jun;171(6 Pt 2):2629-31 [PMID: 15118437]
  22. Urology. 2009 Jun;73(6):1288-92 [PMID: 19362352]
  23. J Urol. 2014 Apr;191(4):1090-5 [PMID: 24513164]
  24. Urology. 2006 Mar;67(3):599-602 [PMID: 16504272]
  25. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1987 May;148(5):959-63 [PMID: 3034009]
  26. J Pediatr Urol. 2015 Apr;11(2):69.e1-6 [PMID: 25791423]
  27. J Urol. 1995 Jun;153(6):1962-5 [PMID: 7752371]
  28. J Urol. 2005 Aug;174(2):700-2 [PMID: 16006953]
  29. J Urol. 1993 Dec;150(6):1795-9 [PMID: 8230507]
  30. Curr Urol Rep. 2011 Apr;12(2):137-43 [PMID: 21243455]
  31. Int Braz J Urol. 2008 Mar-Apr;34(2):198-204; discussion 204-5 [PMID: 18462518]
  32. J Pediatr Urol. 2012 Jun;8(3):276-81 [PMID: 21616719]
  33. BJU Int. 2003 Jul;92(1):104-8; discussion 108 [PMID: 12823392]
  34. Urology. 2005 Feb;65(2):260-4 [PMID: 15708034]
  35. J Urol. 1992 Sep;148(3):775-82; discussion 782-3 [PMID: 1512824]
  36. J Urol. 2006 Nov;176(5):2237-9; discussion 2239-40 [PMID: 17070302]
  37. Aust N Z J Surg. 1998 Sep;68(9):641-2 [PMID: 9737259]
  38. Surg Endosc. 2003 Oct;17(10):1680-2 [PMID: 14702975]
  39. J Urol. 2006 Feb;175(2):683-7; discussion 687 [PMID: 16407025]
  40. J Pediatr Urol. 2013 Apr;9(2):199-205 [PMID: 22386726]
  41. J Urol. 2011 Jun;185(6 Suppl):2517-22 [PMID: 21555027]
  42. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2010 May;20(4):379-82 [PMID: 20210665]
  43. J Urol. 2013 Dec;190(6):2221-6 [PMID: 23911637]
  44. J Urol. 1993 Dec;150(6):1891-4 [PMID: 8230528]
  45. J Endourol. 2001 Jun;15(5):499-503 [PMID: 11465329]
  46. Int J Urol. 2008 Aug;15(8):744-6 [PMID: 18786197]
  47. Surg Endosc. 2001 Nov;15(11):1360 [PMID: 11727154]
  48. Eur Urol. 2002 Nov;42(5):453-7; discussion 457-8 [PMID: 12429153]
  49. J Urol. 2013 Jan;189(1):283-7 [PMID: 23174238]
  50. J Urol. 2011 Apr;185(4):1455-60 [PMID: 21334663]
  51. J Urol. 2005 Oct;174(4 Pt 1):1440-2 [PMID: 16145459]
  52. J Endourol. 2010 Mar;24(3):467-72 [PMID: 20334558]
  53. Surg Oncol. 2011 Sep;20(3):203-9 [PMID: 21353772]
  54. J Urol. 2007 Dec;178(6):2571-5; discussion 2575 [PMID: 17945304]
  55. J Urol. 2003 Oct;170(4 Pt 1):1070-8 [PMID: 14501695]
  56. J Urol. 2011 Oct;186(4 Suppl):1663-7 [PMID: 21862079]
  57. J Pediatr Urol. 2015 Aug;11(4):170.e1-4 [PMID: 25824875]
  58. J Urol. 2007 Oct;178(4 Pt 1):1483-6 [PMID: 17706701]
  59. BJU Int. 2001 Apr;87(6):509-13 [PMID: 11298045]

Grants

  1. T32 DK060442/NIDDK NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0roboticlaparoscopicapproachpyeloplastyoutcomeslaparoscopywellincludesurgicaltrainingPediatricPyeloplastyprocedureprovensafeeffectivepediatricpopulationMultiplestudiesrevealedcomparableopenHowevermajordrawbacktechnicalchallengeprecisesuturingsmallworkingspacechildrenadvantagessurgerycomparedconventionalestablishedmotionscalingenhancedmagnification3-dimensionalstereoscopicvisionimprovedinstrumentdexterityresultsurgeonslimitedexperienceablereadilyacquireskillsLimitationsplatformhighcostsacquisitionmaintenanceneedadditionalarticlereviewcurrentstatusrobot-assistedincludingbriefhistorycomparativecostconsiderationsRobot-AssistedLaparoscopicRoboticUrologicalSurgery

Similar Articles

Cited By