Skip to main content
Log in

Da Vinci robot assisted Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty: technique and 1 year follow-up

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In experienced hands, laparoscopic pyeloplasty is an effective alternative treatment for symptomatic ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). Although laparoscopic surgery can clearly benefit patients, laparoscopic pyeloplasty using conventional instrumentation is complex. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the feasibility of robot assisted laparoscopic surgery. Eleven pyeloplasties for UPJO were performed via a laparoscopic transperitoneal approach exclusively with the da Vinci Surgical System. The mean procedure time was 197 min (range 110–310 min). All operations were completed laparoscopically with no intraoperative complications and negligible blood loss. All patients recovered rapidly after surgery with excellent functional results at the 1 year follow-up. Our initial experience suggests that robot assisted Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty is a safe and effective alternative to conventional laparoscopic surgery. In our opinion, robot assisted surgery will allow urologists to perform complex procedures with greater precision, confidence, and better results, as well as enable them to adapt the whole spectrum of laparoscopic procedures to their field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bauer JJ, Bishoff JT, Moore RG, Chen RN, Iverson AJ, Kavoussi LR (1999) Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: assessment of objective and subjective outcome. J Urol 162:692–695

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bentas W, Wolfram M, Bräutigam R, Binder J (2002) Laparoscopic transperitoneal adrenalectomy using a remote-controlled robotic surgical system. J Endourol 16:373–376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bentas W, Wolfram M, Jones J, Bräutigam R, Kramer W, Binder J (2003) Robotic technology and the translation of open radical prostatectomy to laparoscopy: the early Frankfurt experience with robotic radical prostatectomy and one year follow-up. Eur Urol (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Binder J, Kramer W (2001) Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 87:408–410

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brooks JD, Kavoussi LR, Preminger GM, Schuessler WW, Moore RG (1995) Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urology 46:791–795

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen RN, Moore RG, Kavoussi LR (1998) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: indications, technique and long-term follow-up. Urol Clin North Am 25:323–330

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Eden CG, Cahill D, Allen JD (2001) Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: 50 consecutive cases. BJU Int 88:526–531

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Garcia-Ruiz A, Gagner M, Miller JH, Steiner CP, Hahn JF (1998) Manual vs robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery in the performance of basic manipulation and suturing tasks. Arch Surg 133:957–961

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R (2002) A comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed with the da Vinci robotic system versus standard laparoscopic techniques: initial clinical results. Eur Urol 42:453–458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R (2002) Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology 60:509–513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Janetschek G, Marberger M (2000) Laparoscopic surgery in urology. Curr Opin Urol 10:351–357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Janetschek G, Reschel R, Frauscher F (2000) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Urol Clin North Am 27:695–704

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jarrett TW, Chan DY, Charambura TC, Fugita O, Kavoussi LR (2002) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first 100 cases. J Urol 167:1253–1256

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. McDougall EM, Soble JJ, Wolf JSJr, Nakada SY, Elashry OM, Clayman RV (1996) Comparison of three-dimensional and two-dimensional laparoscopic video systems. J Endourol 10:371–374

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Soulie M, Salomon L, Patard J, Mouly P, Manuntana A, Anitphon P, Lobel B, Abbou CC, Plante P (2001) Extraperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a multicenter study of 55 procedures. J Urol 166:48–50

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tan HL (1999) Laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty in children. J Urol 162:1045–1048

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Türk I, Davis J, Winkelmann B, Deger S, Richter F, Fabrizio M, Schonberger B, Jordan G, Loening S (2002) Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty—the method of choice in the presence of an enlarged renal pelvis and crossing vessels. Eur Urol 42:268–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wassilios Bentas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bentas, W., Wolfram, M., Bräutigam, R. et al. Da Vinci robot assisted Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty: technique and 1 year follow-up. World J Urol 21, 133–138 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-003-0348-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-003-0348-x

Keywords

Navigation