Skip to main content
Log in

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children less than 20 kg by weight: single-center experience

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children less than 20 kg by weight.

Methods

Nineteen patients undergoing RP and twenty-five LP under 20 kg by weight were compared retrospectively with respect to demographics and operative, postoperative, and follow-up data. For all cases, a lateral transperitoneal approach was used and all anastomoses were stented. Success was defined as the resolution of preoperative symptoms and hydronephrosis postoperatively. If either case is not fulfilled, a renogram was obtained postoperatively. Student’s t test was used for statistical analysis.

Results

Forty-four patients underwent forty-seven pyeloplasties (19 RP and 25 LP), with three patients undergoing bilateral simultaneous laparoscopic procedure with mean age of 2.7 and 2.4 years in RP and LP, respectively. The robotic procedures were superior in terms of shorter mean hospital stay by one and half day on an average. Minimum time taken for RP was 60 min, while for LP it was 90 min. Both procedures were comparable in terms of complication rate, success rate as well as operating time.

Conclusions

This comparative study confirms the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of robotic pyeloplasty in infants and toddlers. The obvious advantage is being shorter hospital stay. Further prospective studies will be needed to show its superiority over LP.

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferhi K, Rouprêt M, Misraï V, Renard-Penna R, Chartier-Kastler E, Richard F et al (2009) Functional outcomes after pure and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Actas Urol Esp 33:1103–1107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Baldwin DD, Dunbar JA, Wells N et al (2003) Single-center comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, Acucise endopyelotomy and open pyeloplasty. J Endourol 17:155–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Eichel L, Ahlering TE, Clayman RV (2004) Role of robotics in laparoscopic urologic surgery. Urol Clin North Am 31:781–792

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Meyers RS, Pharm D (2009) Pediatric fluid and electrolyte therapy. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther 14:204–211

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Singh H, Ganpule AP, Malhotra V, Manohar T, Muthu V, Desai MR (2007) Transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric population: single center experience. J Endourol 22:1461–1466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ganpule AP, Bhattu A, Mishra SK, Desai MR (2012) Ultrasound guided ante-grade access during laparoscopic pyeloplasty in infants less than one year of age: a point of technique. J Minim Access Surg 8:107–110

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nakada StephenY, Thomas HS (2012) Management of upper urinary tract obstruction. In: Kavoussi LR, Partin AW, Novick AC, Peters CA (eds) Campbell–Walsh urology, 10th edn. WB Saunders, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  8. Murthy P, Cohn JA, Gundeti MS (2015) Evaluation of robotic-assisted laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children: single-surgeon experience. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 97:109–114

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ekin RG, Celik O, Ilbey YO (2015) An up-to-date overview of minimally invasive treatment methods in ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Cent Eur J Urol 68:245–251

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bird VG, Levellie RJ, Eldefrqu A et al (2011) Comparison of robot assisted versus conventional laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 77:730–735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Weise ES, Winfield H (2006) Robotic computer assisted pyeloplasty versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 20:813–819

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim S, Canter D, Leone N, Patel R, Casale P (2008) A comparative study between laparoscopic and robotically assisted pyeloplasty in the pediatric population. J Urol 179:357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Riachy E, Cost NG, Defoor WR, Reddy PP, Minevich EA, Noh PH (2013) Pediatric standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a comparative single institution study. J Urol 189:283–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen CC, Ou YC, Yang CK, Chiu KY, Wang SS, Su CK et al (2012) Malfunction of the da Vinci robotic system in urology. Int J Urol 19:736–740

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors’ contribution

Ganpule A involved in project development, data analysis, and proof reading and wrote the manuscript. Jairath A wrote the manuscript and involved in data collection and analysis. Singh A edited the manuscript and involved in proof reading. Mishra S edited the manuscript and involved in proof reading. Sabnis RB edited the manuscript and involved in proof reading. Desai MR edited the manuscript and involved in proof reading.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arvind Ganpule.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ganpule, A., Jairath, A., Singh, A. et al. Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children less than 20 kg by weight: single-center experience. World J Urol 33, 1867–1873 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1694-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1694-1

Keywords

Navigation