Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hidden incision endoscopic surgery (HIdES) trocar placement for pediatric robotic pyeloplasty: comparison to traditional port placement

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Robotic assisted laparoscopy pyeloplasty (RALP) has been associated with shorter recovery, less pain and improved cosmesis. To minimize visible scars, the hidden incision endoscopic surgery (HIdES) trocar placement has been previously developed. Our aim was to compare outcomes between the HIdES and traditional port placement (TPP) for pediatric RALP. A retrospective study was performed on patients under 15 years of age who underwent RALP at a single institution between August 2011 and November 2013. Patient demographics, intraoperative details, narcotic administration, and complications were reviewed. A total of 49 patients were identified (29 in HIdES, 20 in TPP). There was no difference in median age (p = 0.77) or median height (p = 0.88) between the two groups. Median operative time was 180 min for HIdES and 194 min for TPP (p = 0.27). Eleven patients (11/29, 37.9%) in the HIdES group and fourteen patients (14/20, 70%) in the TPP group received postoperative narcotics (p < 0.05). Median follow-up was 42 months for HIdES and 41 months for TPP (p = 0.96). There were two complications (2/29, 6.9%) with HIdES, and one complication (1/20, 5.0%) with TPP (p = 1.00). The success rates were 96.6% (28/29) for HIdES and 100% (20/20) for TPP (p = 1.00). HIdES trocar placement for pediatric robotic pyeloplasty is a safe and viable alternative to TPP. HIdES is comparable to TPP regarding operative time, narcotic administration, hospital stay, and complication rate, without compromising success.

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

Abbreviations

RALP:

Robotic assisted laparoscopy pyeloplasty

HIdES:

Hidden incision endoscopic surgery

TPP:

Traditional port placement

CCHMC:

Cincinnati children’s hospital medical center

References

  1. Kim C, McKay K, Docimo SG (2009) Laparoscopic nephrectomy in children: systematic review of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. Urology 73:280–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lee RS, Retik AB, Borer JG, Diamond DA, Peters CA (2005) Pediatric retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison with an age matched cohort of open surgery. J Urol 174:708–711 (discussion 12)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mei H, Pu J, Yang C, Zhang H, Zheng L, Tong Q (2011) Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 25:727–736

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Palese MA, Munver R, Phillips CK, Dinlenc C, Stifelman M, DelPizzo JJ (2005) Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. JSLS 9:252–257

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Casale P (2009) Robotic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population. Curr Urol Rep 10:55–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Casale P, Kojima Y (2009) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery in pediatric urology: an update. Scand J Surg 98:110–119

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cundy TP, Shetty K, Clark J, Chang TP, Sriskandarajah K, Gattas NE et al (2013) The first decade of robotic surgery in children. J Pediatr Surg 48:858–865

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gargollo PC (2011) Hidden incision endoscopic surgery: description of technique, parental satisfaction and applications. J Urol 185:1425–1431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fernbach SK, Maizels M, Conway JJ (1993) Ultrasound grading of hydronephrosis: introduction to the system used by the Society for Fetal Urology. Pediatr Radiol 23:478–480

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Asensio M, Gander R, Royo G (2013) Robotic pyeloplasty: first experiences. Cir Pediatr 26:124–128

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Noh PH, Defoor WR, Reddy PP (2011) Percutaneous antegrade ureteral stent placement during pediatric robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 25:1847–1851

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD et al (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yee DS, Shanberg AM, Duel BP, Rodriguez E, Eichel L, Rajpoot D (2006) Initial comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. Urology 67:599–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Braga LH, Pace K, DeMaria J, Lorenzo AJ (2009) Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: effect on operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and success rate. Eur Urol 56:848–857

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee RS, Retik AB, Borer JG, Peters CA (2006) Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol 175:683–687 (discussion 7)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rassweiler JJ, Teber D, Frede T (2008) Complications of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. World J Urol 26:539–547

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Franco I, Dyer LL, Zelkovic P (2007) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient: hand sewn anastomosis versus robotic assisted anastomosis–is there a difference? J Urol 178:1483–1486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Minnillo BJ, Cruz JA, Sayao RH, Passerotti CC, Houck CS, Meier PM et al (2011) Long-term experience and outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children and young adults. J Urol 185:1455–1460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Olsen LH, Jorgensen TM (2004) Computer assisted pyeloplasty in children: the retroperitoneal approach. J Urol 171:2629–2631

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Singh P, Dogra PN, Kumar R, Gupta NP, Nayak B, Seth A (2012) Outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: a single center experience. J Endourol 26:249–253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kutikov A, Nguyen M, Guzzo T, Canter D, Casale P (2006) Robot assisted pyeloplasty in the infant-lessons learned. J Urol 176:2237–2239 (discussion 9–40)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Atug F, Woods M, Burgess SV, Castle EP, Thomas R (2005) Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children. J Urol 174:1440–1442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank patients and family for participation in this study. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Pediatric Urology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Avenue, ML 5037, Cincinnati, OH, 45229, USA

    Yaejee H. Hong, W. Robert DeFoor Jr, Pramod P. Reddy, Marion Schulte, Eugene A. Minevich, Brian A. VanderBrink & Paul H. Noh

Authors
  1. Yaejee H. Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. W. Robert DeFoor Jr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pramod P. Reddy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marion Schulte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eugene A. Minevich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Brian A. VanderBrink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Paul H. Noh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yaejee H. Hong.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of interest

None. Authors Hong, DeFoor, Reddy, Schulte, Minevich, VanderBrink and Noh in this study declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This research has been approved by local Institutional Review Board at CCHMC and informed consent was obtained from all participants. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hong, Y.H., DeFoor, W.R., Reddy, P.P. et al. Hidden incision endoscopic surgery (HIdES) trocar placement for pediatric robotic pyeloplasty: comparison to traditional port placement. J Robotic Surg 12, 43–47 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0684-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0684-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation