Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pediatric Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty: Where Are We Now?

  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review aims to provide an in-depth exploration of the recent advancements in robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) and its evolving landscape in the context of infant pyeloplasty, complex genitourinary (GU) anatomy, recurrent ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction, cost considerations, and the learning curve.

Recent Findings

Recent literature highlights the safety and efficacy of RALP in treating the infant population, patients with complex GU anomalies, and recurrent UPJO which were all traditionally managed using the open approach. Cost considerations are evolving, with the potential for RALP to have a lesser financial burden. In addition, the learning curve for RALP is diminishing due to robust training programs and advances in research.

Summary

RALP has become the gold standard in the treatment of UPJO in pediatric urology at many children’s hospitals. Surgeon comfort and research in this space allow safe and successful reconstruction in the most challenging of cases.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. Ureteropelvic Junction (UPJ) Obstruction. 2011 [cited 2023; Available from: https://www.chop.edu/conditions-diseases/ureteropelvic-junction-upj-obstruction.

  2. •• Esposito C, Cerulo M, Lepore B, Coppola V, D’Auria D, Esposito G, Carulli R, Del Conte F, Escolino M. Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in children: a systematic review of the literature. J Robot Surg. 2023:1-8. Systematic review discussing controversial topics of pediatric RALP and its evolution throughout time.

  3. Morales-López RA, Pérez-Marchán M, Pérez Brayfield M. Current concepts in pediatric robotic assisted pyeloplasty. Front Pediatr. 2019;7:4.

  4. Park JM, Bloom DA. The pathophysiology of UPJ obstruction. Current concepts Urol Clin North Am. 1998;25(2):161–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Silay MS, Spinoit AF, Undre S, Fiala V, Tandogdu Z, Garmanova T, Guttilla A, Sancaktutar AA, Haid B, Waldert M, Goyal A. Global minimally invasive pyeloplasty study in children: Results from the Pediatric Urology Expert Group of the European Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists working party. J Pediatric Urol. 2016;12(4):229-e1.

  6. Chan YY, Durbin-Johnson B, Sturm RM, Kurzrock EA. Outcomes after pediatric open, laparoscopic, and robotic pyeloplasty at academic institutions. J Pediatric Urol. 2017;13(1):49-e1.

  7. Tomaszewski JJ, et al. Pediatric laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: technical considerations. J Endourol. 2012;26(6):602–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Anderson JC, Hynes W. Retrocaval ureter; a case diagnosed pre-operatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation. Br J Urol. 1949;21(3):209–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kawal T, Srinivasan AK, Shrivastava D, Chu DI, Van Batavia J, Weiss D, Long C, Shukla AR. Pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: does age matter?. J Pediatric Urol. 2018;14(6):540-e1.

  10. Kearns JT, Gundeti MS. Pediatric robotic urologic surgery-2014. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg. 2014;19(3):123–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Orvieto MA, Large M, Gundeti MS. Robotic paediatric urology. BJU Int. 2012;110(1):2–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Peters CA. Robotically assisted surgery in pediatric urology. Urol Clin North Am. 2004;31(4):743–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Muneer A, et al. Current status of robotic surgery in pediatric urology. Pediatr Surg Int. 2008;24(9):973–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kafka IZ, et al. Pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP): does weight matter? Pediatr Surg Int. 2019;35(3):391–6.

    Article  MathSciNet  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kawal T, Srinivasan AK, Shrivastava D, Chu DI, Van Batavia J, Weiss D, Long C, Shukla AR. Pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: does age matter. J Pediatric Urol. 2018;14(6):540-e1.

  16. Masieri L, Sforza S, Grosso AA, Cini C, Viola L, Tellini R, Mari A, Di Maida F, Minervini A, Carini M. Does the body weight influence the outcome in children treated with robotic pyeloplasty. J Pediatric Urol. 2020;16(1):109-e1.

  17. Ganpule A, et al. Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children less than 20 kg by weight: single-center experience. World J Urol. 2015;33(11):1867–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ballouhey Q, Villemagne T, Cros J, Szwarc C, Braik K, Longis B, Lardy H, Fourcade L. A comparison of robotic surgery in children weighing above and below 15.0 kg: size does not affect surgery success. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:2643-50.

  19. Baek M, Silay MS, Au JK, Huang GO, Elizondo RA, Puttmann KT, Janzen NK, Seth A, Roth DR, Koh CJ. Does the use of 5 mm instruments affect the outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in smaller working spaces? A comparative analysis of infants and older children. J Pediatric Urol. 2018;14(6):537-e1.

  20. Neheman A, et al. Comparison of robotic pyeloplasty and standard laparoscopic pyeloplasty in infants: a bi-institutional study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2018;28(4):467–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Avery DI, Herbst KW, Lendvay TS, Noh PH, Dangle P, Gundeti MS, Steele MC, Corbett ST, Peters CA, Kim C. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: multi-institutional experience in infants. J Pediatric Urol. 2015;11(3):139-e1.

  22. Kutikov A, Nguyen M, Guzzo T, Canter D, Casale P. Robot assisted pyeloplasty in the infant—lessons learned. J Urol. 2006;176(5):2237-40.

  23. Bansal D, et al. Infant robotic pyeloplasty: comparison with an open cohort. J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10(2):380–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. •• Esposito C, Masieri L, Blanc T, Musleh L, Ballouhey Q, Fourcade L, Escolino M. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) in children with complex pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction (PUJO): results of a multicenter European report. World J Urol. 2021;39:1641-7. Multi-institutional study comparing outcomes of RALP in patients with complex anatomy.

  25. Esposito C, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) in children with horseshoe kidneys: results of a multicentric study. World J Urol. 2019;37(10):2257–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bowen DK, Mittal S, Aghababian A, Eftekharzadeh S, Dinardo L, Weaver J, Long C, Shukla A, Srinivasan AK. Pyeloplasty is a safe and effective surgical approach for low functioning kidneys with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Pedia Urol. 2021;17(2):233-e1.

  27. Ransley PG, Dhillon HK, Gordon I, Duffy PG, Dillon MJ, Barratt TM. The postnatal management of hydronephrosis diagnosed by prenatal ultrasound. J Urol. 1990;144(2):584-7.

  28. Bansal R, et al. Long-term results of pyeloplasty in poorly functioning kidneys in the pediatric age group. J Pediatr Urol. 2012;8(1):25–8.

    Article  MathSciNet  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nayyar R, et al. Outcomes of pyeloplasty in very poorly functioning kidneys: examining the myths. Urology. 2016;92:132–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sarhan O, Al Otay A, Al Faddagh A, El Helaly A, Al Hagbani M, Al Ghanbar M, Al Kawai F, Nakshabandi Z. Pyeloplasty in children with low differential renal function: functional recoverability. J Pedia Urol. 2021;17(5):658-e1.

  31. Dy GW, et al. National trends in secondary procedures following pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2016;195(4 Pt 2):1209–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Ebert KM, Nicassio L, Alpert SA, Ching CB, Dajusta DG, Fuchs ME, McLeod DJ, Jayanthi VR. Surgical outcomes are equivalent after pure laparoscopic and robotic-assisted pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Pedia Urol. 2020;16(6):845-e1.

  33. Davis TD, Burns AS, Corbett ST, Peters CA. Reoperative robotic pyeloplasty in children. J Pedia Urol. 2016 Dec 1;12(6):394-e1.

  34. •• Mittal S, Aghababian A, Eftekharzadeh S, Dinardo L, Weaver J, Weiss DA, Long C, Srinivasan AK, Shukla AR. Primary vs redo robotic pyeloplasty: A comparison of outcomes. J Pedia Urol. 2021;17(4):528-e1. Largest comparative study between primary and redo-pyeloplasty.

  35. Jacobson DL, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic reoperative repair for failed pyeloplasty in children: an updated series. J Urol. 2019;201(5):1005–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Baek M, et al. Quantifying the additional difficulty of pediatric robot-assisted laparoscopic re-do pyeloplasty: a comparison of primary and re-do procedures. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2018;28(5):610–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Chandrasekharam VVS, Babu R. A systematic review and metaanalysis of open, conventional laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic techniques for re-do pyeloplasty for recurrent uretero pelvic junction obstruction in children. J Pediatr Urol. 2022;18(5):642–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Esposito C, et al. Laparoscopic and robot-assisted ureterocalicostomy for treatment of primary and recurrent pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction in children: a multicenter comparative study with laparoscopic and robot-assisted Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. Int Urol Nephrol. 2022;54(10):2503–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Mittal S, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy in the setting of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a multi-institutional cohort. J Urol. 2022;208(1):180–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Pakkasjarvi N, Taskinen S. Introduction of Pediatric Robot-Assisted Pyeloplasty in A Low-Volume Centre. Clin Pract. 2021;11(1):143–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. •• Bodar YJ, Srinivasan AK, Shah AS, Kawal T, Shukla AR. Time-Driven activity-based costing identifies opportunities for process efficiency and cost optimization for robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Pediatr Urol. 2020 Aug 1;16(4):460-e1., 2020. First paper looking at TDABC in RALP.

  42. Mittal S, Srinivasan A. Robotics in pediatric urology: evolution and the future. Urol Clin North Am. 2021;48(1):113–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Bowen DK, et al. Can proctoring affect the learning curve of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty? Experience at a high-volume pediatric robotic surgery center. J Robot Surg. 2017;11(1):63–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Pakkasjärvi N, Krishnan N, Ripatti L, Anand S. Learning Curves in Pediatric Robot-Assisted Pyeloplasty: A Systematic Review. J Clin Med. 2022;11(23):6935.

  45. Pio L, et al. Learning curve for robotic surgery in children: a systematic review of outcomes and fellowship programs. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(4):531–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. ESU/ERUS Hands-on Training in Robotic surgery. 20 July 2019. Available from: https://uroweb.org/education/live-events/hands-on-training-courses/robot/esuerus-hands-on-training-in-robotic-surgery/.

  47. Larcher A, et al. The ERUS curriculum for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: structure definition and pilot clinical validation. Eur Urol. 2019;75(6):1023–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Larcher A, et al. Virtual reality validation of the ERUS simulation-based training programmes: results from a high-volume training centre for robot-assisted surgery. Eur Urol. 2019;75(5):885–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. European training in basic robot urological skills (E-BRUS). 20 July 2019. Available from: https://www.uroweb.org/education/live-events/hands-on-trainingcourses/robot/european-training-in-basis-robot-urological-skills-e-brus/.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Suhaib Abdulfattah & Sameer Mittal

  2. Department of Surgery/Urology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Sameer Mittal

Authors
  1. Suhaib Abdulfattah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sameer Mittal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.AF and S.M wrote the main manuscript text. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sameer Mittal.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of  Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights Consent and Informed Consent

All reported studies/experiments with human or animal subjects performed by the authors have been previously published and complied with all applicable ethical standards (including the Helsinki declaration and its amendments, institutional/ national research committee standards, and international/national/institutional guidelines).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdulfattah, S., Mittal, S. Pediatric Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty: Where Are We Now?. Curr Urol Rep 25, 55–61 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-024-01195-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-024-01195-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation