Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing the efficacy and safety between robotic-assisted versus open pyeloplasty in children: a systemic review and meta-analysis

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

Abstract

Objective

This manuscript is mainly to systemically review the published reports that compared the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted (RP) versus open pyeloplasty (OP) in children with ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO).

Methods

We did a systemic search in the PubMed® for all randomized controlled trials or comparative studies that compared the surgical results of robotic versus open pyeloplasty in children with UPJO. Two of the authors (Hsu and Chang) independently did the literature search, quality assessment, and data extraction. The obtained data were analyzed with Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager (RevMan®, version 5.3). The end points of the analysis and review included age, operative time, hospital stay, costs, complications, and success rate.

Results

In total, seven comparative trials and three studies using national database met the criteria that comprised 20,691 (RP:OP = 1956:18,735) patients in the meta-analysis. Most studies reported median value of patient age, operative time, and hospital stay. Only a small proportion of studies could be included for meta-analysis. The enrolled trials revealed that RP was more frequently performed in older children, required longer operative time, and shorter hospital stay. The postoperative success rate was comparable (RR = 0.99, 95 CI 0.94–1.04). Comparing with OP, there was a significant higher complication rate (RR = 1.29, 95 CI 1.10–1.51) and higher costs in the RP group.

Conclusion

Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty may be a promising alternative minimal invasive surgery for UPJO in children if the higher complication rates and higher costs in the RP can be overcome in the near future.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Reddy MN, Nerli RB (2015) The laparoscopic pyeloplasty: is there a role in the age of robotics? Urol Clin North Am 42(1):43–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Peters CA, Schlussel RN, Retik AB (1995) Pediatric laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 153(6):1962–1965

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mei H et al (2011) Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 25(5):727–736

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sukumar S et al (2014) Correction of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: national trends and comparative effectiveness in operative outcomes. J Endourol 28(5):592–598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tomaszewski JJ et al (2012) Pediatric laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: technical considerations. J Endourol 26(6):602–613

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Autorino R et al (2014) Robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 65(2):430–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Monn MF et al (2013) Trends in robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric patients. Urology 81(6):1336–1341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. O’Brien ST, Shukla AR (2012) Transition from open to robotic-assisted pediatric pyeloplasty: a feasibility and outcome study. J Pediatr Urol 8(3):276–281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lee RS et al (2006) Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol 175(2):683–687; discussion 687

  10. Yee DS et al (2006) Initial comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. Urology 67(3):599–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sorensen MD et al (2011) Comparison of the learning curve and outcomes of robotic assisted pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol 185(6 Suppl):2517–2522

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Barbosa JA et al (2013) Comparative evaluation of the resolution of hydronephrosis in children who underwent open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Pediatr Urol 9(2):199–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dangle PP et al (2013) Outcomes of infants undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty compared to open repair. J Urol 190(6):2221–2226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bansal D et al (2014) Infant robotic pyeloplasty: comparison with an open cohort. J Pediatr Urol 10(2):380–385

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Behan JW et al (2011) Human capital gains associated with robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children compared to open pyeloplasty. J Urol 186(4 Suppl):1663–1667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Liu DB et al (2014) Contemporary national comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pediatric pyeloplasty. J Pediatr Urol 10(4):610–615

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Varda BK et al (2014) National trends of perioperative outcomes and costs for open, laparoscopic and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol 191(4):1090–1095

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tasian GE, Wiebe DJ, Casale P (2013) Learning curve of robotic assisted pyeloplasty for pediatric urology fellows. J Urol 190(4 Suppl):1622–1626

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Braga LH et al (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(5):848–857

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sukumar S et al (2014) Minimally invasive vs open pyeloplasty in children: the differential effect of procedure volume on operative outcomes. Urology 84(1):180–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cheung CL et al (2014) Use of 3-dimensional printing technology and silicone modeling in surgical simulation: development and face validation in pediatric laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Surg Educ 71(5):762–767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cundy TP et al (2014) Meta-analysis of robot-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children. BJU Int 114(4):582–594

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rowe CK et al (2012) A comparative direct cost analysis of pediatric urologic robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery: could robot-assisted surgery be less expensive? J Endourol 26(7):871–877

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sethi AS, Regan SM, Sundaram CP (2011) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty with and without a ureteral stent. J Endourol 25(2):239–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kocvara R et al (2014) Unstented laparoscopic pyeloplasty in young children (1–5 years old): a comparison with a repair using double-J stent or transanastomotic externalized stent. J Pediatr Urol 10(6):1153–1159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Koh CJ (2013) Editorial comment. J Urol 190(6):2226–2227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study is partly funded by Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation. TCRD-TPE-103-RT-7.

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical standard

As the study was a systemic review of published data and meta-analysis of the pooled data, we did not apply for the approval of Institutional Review Board.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urology, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, The Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, 289 Chienkuo Road, Xindian, New Taipei City, 231, Taiwan

    Shang-Jen Chang, Chun-Kai Hsu, Cheng-Hsing Hsieh & Stephen Shei-Dei Yang

  2. School of Medicine, Buddhist Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan

    Shang-Jen Chang, Chun-Kai Hsu, Cheng-Hsing Hsieh & Stephen Shei-Dei Yang

Authors
  1. Shang-Jen Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chun-Kai Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cheng-Hsing Hsieh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephen Shei-Dei Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Shei-Dei Yang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chang, SJ., Hsu, CK., Hsieh, CH. et al. Comparing the efficacy and safety between robotic-assisted versus open pyeloplasty in children: a systemic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol 33, 1855–1865 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1526-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1526-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation