Transperitoneal Versus Retroperitoneal Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in Children. A Multicentre, Prospective Study.

Thomas Blanc, Olivier Abbo, Fabrizio Vatta, Julien Grosman, Fabienne Marquant, Caroline Elie, Mélodie Juricic, Samia Laraqui, Aline Broch, Alexis Arnaud
Author Information
  1. Thomas Blanc: Department of Pediatric Surgery and Urology, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
  2. Olivier Abbo: Department of Pediatric Surgery, Hôpital des Enfants, CHU Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
  3. Fabrizio Vatta: Department of Pediatric Surgery and Urology, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
  4. Julien Grosman: Department of Pediatric Surgery and Urology, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
  5. Fabienne Marquant: Unité de Recherche Clinique/Centre d'investigation Clinique, Hôpital Necker-Enfants malades, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
  6. Caroline Elie: Unité de Recherche Clinique/Centre d'investigation Clinique, Hôpital Necker-Enfants malades, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
  7. Mélodie Juricic: Department of Pediatric Surgery, Hôpital des Enfants, CHU Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
  8. Samia Laraqui: Unité de Recherche Clinique/Centre d'investigation Clinique, Hôpital Necker-Enfants malades, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
  9. Aline Broch: Department of Pediatric Surgery and Urology, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
  10. Alexis Arnaud: Department of Pediatric Surgery, CHU Rennes, Université Rennes, Rennes, France.

Abstract

Background: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) has been gaining acceptance among paediatric urologists.
Objective: To compare surgical variables and clinical outcomes, including complications and success rate, with RALP using the transperitoneal (T-RALP) and retroperitoneal (R-RALP) approaches.
Design setting and participants: We performed a multicentre, prospective, cohort study (NCT03274050) between November 2016 and October 2021 in three paediatric urology teaching centres (transperitoneal approach, = 2; retroperitoneal approach, = 1). The diagnosis of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) was confirmed by renal ultrasound and mercaptoacetyltriglycine-3 renal scan or uro-magnetic resonance imaging with functional evaluation. The exclusion criteria were children <2 yr old, persistent UPJO after failed pyeloplasty, and horseshoe and ectopic kidney.
Intervention: We performed dismembered pyeloplasty using running monofilament 6-0 absorbable suture.
Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We assessed intra- and postoperative morbidity (primary outcome) and success (secondary outcome). Data were expressed as medians and interquartile range (25th and 75th percentiles) for quantitative variables, and analysed comparatively.
Results and limitations: We operated on 106 children (T-RALP, = 53; R-RALP, = 53). Preoperative data were comparable between groups (median age 9.1 [6.2-11.2] yr; median weight 26.8 [21-40] kg). Set-up time (10 vs 31 min), anastomotic time (49 vs 73 min), and console time (97 vs 153 min) were significantly shorter with T-RALP than with R-RALP ( < 0.001). No intraoperative complications occurred. No conversion to open surgery was necessary. The median hospital stay was longer after T-RALP (2 d) than after R-RALP (1 d; < 0.001). Overall, postoperative complication rates were similar. No failure had occurred at the mean follow-up of 25.4 (15.1-34.7) mo.
Conclusions: In selected children, RALP is safe and effective using either the transperitoneal or the retroperitoneal approach, with a shorter hospital stay after R-RALP.
Patient summary: In our multicentre, prospective study, we compared the results and complications of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) using the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. We found that RALP is safe and effective using either approach, with a shorter hospital stay after R-RALP.

Keywords

References

  1. J Pediatr Urol. 2018 Aug;14(4):336.e1-336.e8 [PMID: 29530407]
  2. Front Pediatr. 2021 Jul 29;9:707266 [PMID: 34395345]
  3. J Endourol. 2005 Sep;19(7):797-802 [PMID: 16190831]
  4. J Urol. 2007 Nov;178(5):2137-41; discussion 2141 [PMID: 17870122]
  5. J Urol. 1995 Jun;153(6):1962-5 [PMID: 7752371]
  6. J Robot Surg. 2010 May;4(1):29-32 [PMID: 27638569]
  7. J Urol. 2010 Sep;184(3):1128-33 [PMID: 20650485]
  8. BJU Int. 2014 Oct;114(4):582-94 [PMID: 25383399]
  9. Eur Urol. 2013 Mar;63(3):565-72 [PMID: 22902039]
  10. J Pediatr Urol. 2020 Feb;16(1):109.e1-109.e6 [PMID: 31806424]
  11. Eur Urol. 2010 Nov;58(5):711-8 [PMID: 20800338]
  12. J Robot Surg. 2018 Mar;12(1):109-115 [PMID: 28455800]
  13. J Pediatr Urol. 2005 Apr;1(2):101-4 [PMID: 18947545]
  14. Int J Surg. 2019 Aug;68:126-133 [PMID: 31279854]
  15. J Urol. 2007 Nov;178(5):2020-4; discussion 2024 [PMID: 17869300]
  16. J Urol. 2022 Apr;207(4):894-900 [PMID: 34854751]
  17. J Pediatr Urol. 2017 Oct;13(5):511.e1-511.e4 [PMID: 28483468]
  18. J Urol. 2010 Jan;183(1):306-11 [PMID: 19914659]
  19. Eur Urol. 2021 Nov;80(5):621-631 [PMID: 34247895]
  20. J Urol. 2017 Mar;197(3 Pt 1):792-797 [PMID: 27765696]
  21. Eur Urol. 2005 Dec;48(6):973-7 [PMID: 16171940]
  22. Front Pediatr. 2019 Jan 24;7:4 [PMID: 30733937]
  23. Front Pediatr. 2019 May 28;7:209 [PMID: 31192176]
  24. J Pediatr Urol. 2015 Jun;11(3):122.e1-6 [PMID: 25979219]
  25. J Urol. 2002 Mar;167(3):1253-6 [PMID: 11832708]
  26. World J Urol. 2020 Aug;38(8):1841-1848 [PMID: 31435732]
  27. Eur Urol Focus. 2021 May 26;: [PMID: 34052169]
  28. Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13 [PMID: 15273542]
  29. Urology. 2004 Jan;63(1):27-32 [PMID: 14751341]
  30. World J Urol. 2020 Aug;38(8):1827-1833 [PMID: 31506749]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0R-RALPRALPusingpyeloplastytransperitonealT-RALPretroperitonealapproach=complications1childrenmediantimevsminshorterhospitalstayRobotic-assistedlaparoscopicpaediatricvariablessuccessapproachesperformedmulticentreprospectivestudy2junctionobstructionUPJOrenalyrpostoperativeoutcome53<0001occurreddsafeeffectiveeitherTransperitonealRetroperitonealPyeloplastyUreteropelvicBackground:gainingacceptanceamongurologistsObjective:comparesurgicalclinicaloutcomesincludingrateDesignsettingparticipants:cohortNCT03274050November2016October2021threeurologyteachingcentresdiagnosisureteropelvicconfirmedultrasoundmercaptoacetyltriglycine-3scanuro-magneticresonanceimagingfunctionalevaluationexclusioncriteria<2oldpersistentfailedhorseshoeectopickidneyIntervention:dismemberedrunningmonofilament6-0absorbablesutureOutcomemeasurementsstatisticalanalysis:assessedintra-morbidityprimarysecondaryDataexpressedmediansinterquartilerange25th75thpercentilesquantitativeanalysedcomparativelyResultslimitations:operated106Preoperativedatacomparablegroupsage9[62-112]weight268[21-40]kgSet-up1031anastomotic4973console97153significantlyintraoperativeconversionopensurgerynecessarylongerOverallcomplicationratessimilarfailuremeanfollow-up254151-347moConclusions:selectedPatientsummary:comparedresultsrobotic-assistedfoundVersusLaparoscopicJunctionObstructionChildrenMulticentreProspectiveStudyPaediatricsRobot-assistedlaparoscopy

Similar Articles

Cited By (6)