Robotic Urologic Surgery in Infants: Results and Complications.

Christina Kim
Author Information
  1. Christina Kim: Department of Urology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, AL, United States.

Abstract

Over the last 30 years, robotic surgery has evolved into the preferred surgical approach for many operative cases. Robotics has been associated with lower pain scales, shorter hospitalizations, and improved cosmesis (1, 2). However, its acceptance in pediatrics have been hampered by longer operative times, smaller working space, and limited fine surgical instruments. Many find these challenges even more pronounced when performing robotic surgery in infants (i.e., children <1 year old). Although the data in infants is less robust, many studies have shown benefits similar to the adult population. Specifically, multiple reports of robotic surgery in infants have shown lower postoperative analgesic use. Additionally, hospital stays are shorter, which may lead to quicker return to work for parents and guardians. Multiple reports have shown low complication rates of robotic surgery in infants. When complications have occurred, they are usually Clavien Grade 1 and 2, with occasional grade 3. Often the complications are not from the robotic technique, but are linked to other factors such as the ureteral stents (3, 4). Most importantly, the success rates of surgery are comparable to open surgery. This chapter will review indications for the most common urologic robotic surgeries performed in infants. Also, we will review reported results and complications of robotic surgery in children, with specific attention to the infant population. However, data focused only on infants is limited. Many studies have some infant patients, but their results are often mixed with all pediatric patients.

Keywords

References

  1. Urol Clin North Am. 2004 Nov;31(4):743-52 [PMID: 15474601]
  2. Urol Clin North Am. 2004 Nov;31(4):781-92 [PMID: 15474606]
  3. J Urol. 1997 Feb;157(2):459-62 [PMID: 8996331]
  4. J Pediatr Urol. 2012 Jun;8(3):268-71 [PMID: 21641872]
  5. J Urol. 2008 Oct;180(4):1479-85 [PMID: 18710777]
  6. J Pediatr Urol. 2014 Aug;10(4):610-5 [PMID: 25082711]
  7. J Endourol. 2005 Jul-Aug;19(6):618-21; discussion 621-2 [PMID: 16053348]
  8. J Urol. 2011 May;185(5):1876-81 [PMID: 21421231]
  9. Curr Opin Urol. 2017 Jan;27(1):20-26 [PMID: 27764016]
  10. J Urol. 2013 Mar;189(3):1083-6 [PMID: 23017518]
  11. Urology. 2013 Oct;82(4):917-20 [PMID: 23958513]
  12. J Pediatr Urol. 2013 Dec;9(6 Pt B):1198-203 [PMID: 23782875]
  13. Surg Endosc. 2008 Jan;22(1):177-82 [PMID: 17522913]
  14. J Pediatr Urol. 2018 Aug;14(4):336.e1-336.e8 [PMID: 29530407]
  15. J Pediatr Urol. 2015 Apr;11(2):82.e1-8 [PMID: 25864615]
  16. J Urol. 2011 May;185(5):1870-5 [PMID: 21421223]
  17. J Urol. 2013 Jul;190(1):244-50 [PMID: 23276511]
  18. J Urol. 2014 Apr;191(4):1090-5 [PMID: 24513164]
  19. J Pediatr Urol. 2018 Dec;14(6):570.e1-570.e10 [PMID: 30177385]
  20. Urol Clin North Am. 2015 Feb;42(1):43-52 [PMID: 25455171]
  21. J Urol. 2013 Oct;190(4 Suppl):1622-6 [PMID: 23410982]
  22. J Endourol. 2011 Aug;25(8):1299-305 [PMID: 21774665]
  23. Ann Plast Surg. 2008 Apr;60(4):445-51 [PMID: 18362577]
  24. World J Urol. 2007 Mar;25(1):105-10 [PMID: 17192816]
  25. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2009 Oct;19(5):707-12 [PMID: 19694560]
  26. J Endourol. 2008 Oct;22(10):2393-6; discussion 2396 [PMID: 18937604]
  27. J Urol. 2012 Nov;188(5):1665-6 [PMID: 22998922]
  28. J Urol. 1999 Sep;162(3 Pt 1):692-5 [PMID: 10458344]
  29. J Pediatr Urol. 2018 Dec;14(6):540.e1-540.e6 [PMID: 29909190]
  30. J Urol. 2009 Oct;182(4):1561-8 [PMID: 19683760]
  31. Eur Urol. 2015 Dec;68(6):1069-75 [PMID: 26187785]
  32. J Urol. 2013 Dec;190(6):2221-6 [PMID: 23911637]
  33. J Pediatr Urol. 2016 Dec;12(6):335-343 [PMID: 27687532]
  34. J Robot Surg. 2012 Sep;6(3):259-62 [PMID: 27638284]
  35. J Urol. 2006 Nov;176(5):2222-5; discussion 2225-6 [PMID: 17070297]
  36. J Pediatr Urol. 2014 Oct;10(5):864-8 [PMID: 24642080]
  37. Urology. 2006 Mar;67(3):599-602 [PMID: 16504272]
  38. J Urol. 2017 Jun;197(6):1555-1561 [PMID: 28130103]
  39. J Pediatr Surg. 2010 Dec;45(12):2364-8 [PMID: 21129546]
  40. J Urol. 2015 Sep;194(3):772-6 [PMID: 25758609]
  41. J Urol. 2011 Jun;185(6 Suppl):2517-22 [PMID: 21555027]
  42. J Urol. 1993 Dec;150(6):1891-4 [PMID: 8230528]
  43. J Pediatr Urol. 2016 Dec;12(6):428-429 [PMID: 27825585]
  44. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016 Dec;26(12):1021-1027 [PMID: 27926352]
  45. Eur Urol Focus. 2017 Apr;3(2-3):172-180 [PMID: 28889938]
  46. J Pediatr Urol. 2014 Oct;10(5):869-74 [PMID: 24661900]
  47. Korean J Urol. 2014 Apr;55(4):288-91 [PMID: 24741420]
  48. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2014 Feb;24(1):e29-31 [PMID: 24487172]
  49. J Pediatr Urol. 2015 Jun;11(3):139.e1-5 [PMID: 26052000]
  50. N Engl J Med. 2010 Aug 19;363(8):701-4 [PMID: 20818872]
  51. J Urol. 2004 Apr;171(4):1652-3 [PMID: 15017258]
  52. J Endourol. 2005 Jan-Feb;19(1):15-20 [PMID: 15735376]
  53. Int J Urol. 2017 Dec;24(12):855-860 [PMID: 29027269]
  54. J Urol. 2016 Jan;195(1):155-61 [PMID: 26173106]
  55. J Pediatr Urol. 2018 Jun;14(3):262.e1-262.e6 [PMID: 29503220]
  56. Surg Endosc. 2010 Jul;24(7):1746-51 [PMID: 20054565]
  57. J Pediatr Urol. 2018 Dec;14(6):537.e1-537.e6 [PMID: 30007500]
  58. BJU Int. 2014 Oct;114(4):630-2 [PMID: 24841534]
  59. J Am Coll Surg. 1995 Dec;181(6):552-7 [PMID: 7582231]
  60. Anesth Analg. 2004 Dec;99(6):1665-1667 [PMID: 15562050]
  61. J Pediatr Urol. 2015 Aug;11(4):170.e1-4 [PMID: 25824875]
  62. J Pediatr Urol. 2014 Oct;10(5):875-9 [PMID: 24766855]
  63. Surg Endosc. 2015 Sep;29(9):2643-50 [PMID: 25480612]
  64. J Urol. 2006 Feb;175(2):683-7; discussion 687 [PMID: 16407025]
  65. J Urol. 2015 May;193(5 Suppl):1791-5 [PMID: 25301094]
  66. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2016 Jun;29(3):337-44 [PMID: 26963471]
  67. Eur Urol. 2003 Sep;44(3):340-5 [PMID: 12932933]
  68. J Pediatr Urol. 2016 Dec;12(6):402.e1-402.e9 [PMID: 27522319]
  69. J Urol. 2006 Nov;176(5):2237-9; discussion 2239-40 [PMID: 17070302]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0roboticsurgeryinfantscomplicationsshownsurgicalmanyoperativelowershorter12HoweverlimitedManychildrendatastudiespopulationreportsrates3willreviewindicationsresultsinfantpatientspediatriclast30yearsevolvedpreferredapproachcasesRoboticsassociatedpainscaleshospitalizationsimprovedcosmesisacceptancepediatricshamperedlongertimessmallerworkingspacefineinstrumentsfindchallengesevenpronouncedperformingie<1yearoldAlthoughlessrobustbenefitssimilaradultSpecificallymultiplepostoperativeanalgesicuseAdditionallyhospitalstaysmayleadquickerreturnworkparentsguardiansMultiplelowcomplicationoccurredusuallyClavienGradeoccasionalgradeOftentechniquelinkedfactorsureteralstents4importantlysuccesscomparableopenchaptercommonurologicsurgeriesperformedAlsoreportedspecificattentionfocusedoftenmixedRoboticUrologicSurgeryInfants:ResultsComplicationslaparoscopyoutcomes

Similar Articles

Cited By