Current Concepts in Pediatric Robotic Assisted Pyeloplasty.

Ramphis A Morales-López, Marcos Pérez-Marchán, Marcos Pérez Brayfield
Author Information
  1. Ramphis A Morales-López: Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Puerto Rico School of Medicine, San Juan, PR, United States.
  2. Marcos Pérez-Marchán: Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Puerto Rico School of Medicine, San Juan, PR, United States.
  3. Marcos Pérez Brayfield: Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Puerto Rico School of Medicine, San Juan, PR, United States.

Abstract

Robotic surgery in pediatric urology has been gaining popularity since its introduction almost two decades ago. Robotic assisted pyeloplasty is the most common robotic procedure performed in pediatric urology. Advances in robotic technology, instrumentation, patient care and surgical expertise have allowed the correction of ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction in most patients using this minimally invasive technique. The excellent experience with robotic assisted pyeloplasty has challenged other approaches as a new standard for the treatment of UPJ obstruction. In this review, we will describe the technique as it relates to the different robotic platforms, review the surgical experience and compare its results to other surgical approaches. Also, we will discuss patient and parent satisfaction, cost and financial considerations, along with evaluating the future of robotic surgery in the treatment of UPJ obstruction.

Keywords

References

  1. J Urol. 2005 Oct;174(4 Pt 1):1440-2 [PMID: 16145459]
  2. J Urol. 2006 Feb;175(2):683-7; discussion 687 [PMID: 16407025]
  3. Urology. 2006 Mar;67(3):599-602 [PMID: 16504272]
  4. J Urol. 2006 Apr;175(4):1477-9; discussion 1479 [PMID: 16516026]
  5. Ann Surg. 2006 Apr;243(4):486-91 [PMID: 16552199]
  6. ScientificWorldJournal. 2006 Jun 20;6:2581-8 [PMID: 17619734]
  7. J Urol. 2007 Oct;178(4 Pt 1):1483-6 [PMID: 17706701]
  8. J Urol. 2007 Nov;178(5):2137-41; discussion 2141 [PMID: 17870122]
  9. J Endourol. 2008 Apr;22(4):819-24 [PMID: 18419223]
  10. Eur Urol. 2009 Nov;56(5):848-57 [PMID: 19359084]
  11. J Urol. 2010 Feb;183(2):704-8 [PMID: 20022046]
  12. J Endourol. 2010 Sep;24(9):1431-4 [PMID: 20626236]
  13. J Urol. 2011 Apr;185(4):1455-60 [PMID: 21334663]
  14. J Urol. 2011 Apr;185(4):1425-31 [PMID: 21334692]
  15. J Pediatr Urol. 2012 Aug;8(4):354-8 [PMID: 21802371]
  16. J Urol. 2011 Oct;186(4 Suppl):1663-7 [PMID: 21862079]
  17. J Pediatr Urol. 2013 Apr;9(2):199-205 [PMID: 22386726]
  18. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012 May;22(4):362-70 [PMID: 22423957]
  19. BJU Int. 2012 Jul;110(1):2-13 [PMID: 22429799]
  20. Int J Med Robot. 2013 Mar;9(1):12-6 [PMID: 23348914]
  21. J Urol. 2014 Apr;191(4):1090-5 [PMID: 24513164]
  22. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg. 2014 Jul;19(3):123-8 [PMID: 25197187]
  23. BJU Int. 2014 Oct;114(4):582-94 [PMID: 25383399]
  24. J Pediatr Urol. 2014 Dec;10(6):982-98 [PMID: 25435247]
  25. Urol Clin North Am. 2015 Feb;42(1):43-52 [PMID: 25455171]
  26. J Pediatr Urol. 2015 Apr;11(2):69.e1-6 [PMID: 25791423]
  27. J Pediatr Urol. 2015 Jun;11(3):139.e1-5 [PMID: 26052000]
  28. Pediatr Surg Int. 2015 Sep;31(9):871-7 [PMID: 26143412]
  29. Pediatr Radiol. 2015 Nov;45(12):1788-95 [PMID: 26216155]
  30. Cent European J Urol. 2015;68(2):245-51 [PMID: 26251754]
  31. Pediatr Surg Int. 2016 Jun;32(6):599-607 [PMID: 26833312]
  32. BJU Int. 2016 Nov;118(5):790-796 [PMID: 27105017]
  33. Pediatr Surg Int. 2016 Nov;32(11):1037-1045 [PMID: 27567622]
  34. J Endourol. 2017 Feb;31(2):204-209 [PMID: 27927021]
  35. J Robot Surg. 2018 Mar;12(1):43-47 [PMID: 28293866]
  36. PLoS One. 2017 Apr 20;12(4):e0175026 [PMID: 28426695]
  37. Asian J Urol. 2017 Jan;4(1):55-67 [PMID: 29264208]
  38. J Pediatr Urol. 2018 Aug;14(4):336.e1-336.e8 [PMID: 29530407]
  39. J Pediatr Urol. 2018 Dec;14(6):537.e1-537.e6 [PMID: 30007500]
  40. J Urol. 1996 Mar;155(3):1070-3 [PMID: 8583567]
  41. Urol Clin North Am. 1998 May;25(2):161-9 [PMID: 9633571]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0roboticUPJobstructionRoboticpediatricurologypyeloplastysurgicalsurgeryassistedpatienttechniqueexperienceapproachestreatmentreviewwillgainingpopularitysinceintroductionalmosttwodecadesagocommonprocedureperformedAdvancestechnologyinstrumentationcareexpertiseallowedcorrectionureteropelvicjunctionpatientsusingminimallyinvasiveexcellentchallengednewstandarddescriberelatesdifferentplatformscompareresultsAlsodiscussparentsatisfactioncostfinancialconsiderationsalongevaluatingfutureCurrentConceptsPediatricAssistedPyeloplastychildrenrobotics

Similar Articles

Cited By (8)