Current Urology Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 124–129 | Cite as

Robotic pyeloplasty

  • Jacques Hubert
Article

Abstract

In addition to the classic open surgery, a variety of minimally invasive therapeutic options have been developed for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction, including an endoscopic antegrade or retrograde ureteropelvic junction obstruction visually controlled incision or radioscopically controlled Acucise (Applied Medical, Laguna Hills, CA), which does not share the high success rate that results from open-surgical dismembered pyeloplasty. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty, which duplicates the open technique and differs only by the mode of access, has proven to have positive results when performed by experts, but remains a demanding technique that requires a long learning curve. Providing a three-dimensional vision, an unprecedented control of the endocorporeal instruments, and an ergonomic surgeon’s position, robots may allow urologists with limited laparoscopic experience to rapidly master the endocorporeal management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. They likely will propel minimally invasive urology forward in the next several years.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Brooks JD, Kavoussi LR, Preminger GM, et al.: Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urology 1995, 46:791–795.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    O’Reilly PH, Brooman PJ, Mak S, et al.: The long-term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. BJU Int 2001, 87:287–289.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kadir S, White RI, Engel R: Balloon dilatation of a ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Radiology 1982, 143:263–264.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meretyk I, Meretyk S, Clayman RV: Endopyelotomy: comparison of ureteroscopic retrograde and antegrade percutaneous techniques. J Urol 1992, 148:775–783.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Webb DR, Kockelburgh R, Johnson WF: The Versapulse Holmium surgical laser in clinical urology: a pilot study. Minim Invasive Ther 1993, 2:23–26.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gerber GS, Kim J: Ureteroscopic endopyelotomy in the treatment of patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 2000, 55:198–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Renner C, Frede T, Seemann O, Rassweiler J: Laser endopyelotomy: minimally invasive therapy of ureteropelvic junction stenosis. J Endourol 1998, 12:537–544.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kletscher BA, Segura JW, LeRoy AJ, Patterson DE: Percutaneous antegrade endopyelotomy: review of 50 consecutive cases. J Urol 1995, 153:701–703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Combe M, Gelet A, Abdelrahim AF, et al.: Ureteropelvic invagination procedure for endopyelotomy (Gelet technique): review of 51 consecutive cases. J Endourol 1996, 10:153–157.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chandhoke PS, Clayman RV, Stone AM, et al.: Endopyelotomy and endoureterotomy with the Acucise ureteral cutting balloon device: preliminary experience. J Endourol 1993, 7:45–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nakada SY: Acucise endopyelotomy. Urology 2000, 55:277–282.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lechevallier E, Eghazarian C, Ortega JC, et al.: Retrograde Acucise endopyelotomy: long-term results. J Endourol 1999, 13:575–578.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gelet A, Combe M, Ramackers JM, et al.: Endopyelotomy with the Acucise cutting balloon device: early clinical experience. Eur Urol 1997, 31:389–393.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim FJ, Herrell SD, Jahoda AE, Albala DM: Complications of Acucise endopyelotomy. J Endourol 1998, 12:433–436.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Biyani CS, Minhas S, el Cast J, et al.: The role of Acucise endopyelotomy in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol 2002, 41:305–311. This is a review of the Acucise endopyelotomy technique with an editorial comment from PJ Van Cangh.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Preminger GM, Clayman RV, Nakada SY, et al.: A multicenter clinical trial investigating the use of a fluoroscopically controlled cutting balloon catheter for the management of ureteral and ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 1997, 157:1625–1629.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Cangh PJ, Nesa S, Galeon M, et al.: Vessels around the ureteropelvic junction: significance and imaging by conventional radiology. J Endourol 1996, 10:111–119.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Cangh PJ, Wilmart JF, Opsomer RJ, et al.: Long-term results and late recurrence after endoureteropyelotomy: a critical analysis of prognostic factors. J Urol 1994, 151:934–937.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gupta M, Smith AD: Crossing vessels: endourologic implications. Urol Clin North Am 1998, 25:289–293.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sampaio FJB, Favorito L: Ureteropelvic junction stenosis: vascular anatomical background for endopyelotomy. J Urol 1993, 150:1787–1791.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Conlin MJ: Results of selective management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Endourol 2002, 16:233–236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kavoussi LR, Peters CA: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol 1993, 150:1891–1984.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, et al.: Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1993, 150:1795–1799.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Janetschek G, Peschel R, Bartsch G: Laparoscopic Fenger plasty. J Endourol 2000, 14:889–893.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Soulie M, Salomon L, Patard JJ, et al.: Extraperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a multicenter study of 55 procedures. J Urol 2001, 166:48–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jarrett TW, Chan DY, Charambura TC, et al.: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first 100 cases. J Urol 2002, 167:1253–1256. This is an in-depth examination of an important series of patients who underwent laparoscopic UPJO treatment.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Meng MV, Stoller M: Laparoscopic intracorporeal square-toslip knot. Urology 2002, 59:932–933.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Soper NJ, Hunter JG: Suturing and knot-tying in laparoscopy. Surg Clin North Am 1992, 72:1139–1152.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Adams JB, Schulam PG, Moore RG, et al.: New laparoscopic suturing device: initial clinical experience. Urology 1995, 46:242–245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stifelman M, Nieder AM: Prospective comparison of handassisted laparoscopic devices. Urology 2002, 59:668–672.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marescaux J, Leroy J, Gagner M, et al.: Transatlantic robotassisted telesurgery. Nature 2001, 413:379–380. [Published erratum appears in Nature 2001, 414:710.]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Guillonneau B, Jayet C, Tewari A, Vallancien G: Robot assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy. J Urol 2001, 166:200–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bentas W, Wolfram M, Brautigam R, Binder J: Laparoscopic transperitoneal adrenalectomy using a remote-controlled robotic surgical system. J Endourol 2002, 16:373–376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L, et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. J Urol 2001, 165:1964–1966.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hubert J, Feuillu B, Mangin P, et al.: Robot-assisted (Da Vinci) laparoscopic UPJ repair: results of experimental surgery in a series of 14 pigs [in French]. Prog Urol 2002, 12:592–596.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Eden CG, Cahill D, Allen JD: Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: 50 consecutive cases. BJU Int 2001, 88:526–531.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Türk IA, Davis JW, Winkelmann B, et al.: Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: the method of choice in the presence of an enlarged renal pelvis and crossing vessel. Eur Urol 2002, 42:268–275.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ballantyne GH: Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring. Surg Endosc 2002, 16:1389–1402. This is an important study that assesses the different available robots, their advantages, and their problems.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yohannes P, Rotariu P, Pinto P, et al.: Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: Is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology 2002, 60:39–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R: Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology 2002, 60:509–513. This article discusses the first series of patients with UPJO treated laparoscopically with the da Vinci system.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sung GT, Gill IS, Hsu TH: Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a pilot study. Urology 1999, 53:1099–1103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sung GT, Gill IS: Robotic laparoscopic surgery: a comparison of the da Vinci and ZEUS systems. Urology 2001, 58:893–898. This article compares the results of experimental surgery performed using two available robotic systems.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rassweiler J, Binder J, Frede T: Robotic and telesurgery: Will they change our future? Curr Opin Urol 2001, 11:309–320.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vallancien G, Cathelineau X, Baumert H, et al.: Complications of transperitoneal laparoscopic surgery in urology: review of 1311 procedures at a single center. J Urol 2002, 168:23–26. This article outlines one of the most important experiences in urologic laparoscopy as performed by leading laparoscopists.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacques Hubert
    • 1
  1. 1.Service d’UrologieCHU De NANCY-BraboisVandoeuvre Les NancyFrance

Personalised recommendations