Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Outcomes of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in symptomatic versus asymptomatic patients

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

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the outcome of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RAP) in symptomatic patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) versus patients who were incidentally found to have UPJO.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 141 patients who underwent RAP at Massachusetts General Hospital between 2008 and 2020. Patients were categorized into symptomatic group and asymptomatic group. We compared patient demographics as well as preoperative and postoperative symptoms and functional renal scans.

Results

The study population included 108 patients in the symptomatic group and 33 patients in the asymptomatic group. Mean age was 46 ± 17 years with average follow-up time of 12 ± 18 months. Asymptomatic patients had significantly higher rate of definite obstruction (80% versus 70%) and equivocal obstruction (10% versus 0.9%) on preop renogram (P: 0.001). There was no significant difference in the preop split renal function in symptomatic versus asymptomatic group (39 ± 13 versus 36 ± 13 P: 0.3). Following RAP, 91% of symptomatic patients achieved symptom resolution, while four asymptomatic patients (12%) developed new symptoms postoperatively. Compared to preoperative renogram, RAP resulted in improvement in renogram indices in 61% of symptomatic versus 75% of asymptomatic patients (P: 0.2).

Conclusion

Although asymptomatic patients had worse obstructive indices on renogram, both symptomatic and asymptomatic groups had comparable improvement in renal function following robotic pyeloplasty. RAP is a safe and efficacious minimally invasive option to offer symptom resolution in symptomatic patients and improve obstruction in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with UPJO.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [DD], upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Etafy M, Pick D, Said S et al (2011) Robotic pyeloplasty: the University of California-Irvine experience. J Urol 185(6):2196–2200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.054

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stamm AW, Akapame S, Durfy S, Du CC, Kozlowski PM (2019) Outcomes after robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in patients presenting with pain versus nonpain presenting symptoms. Urology 03(125):111–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.10.046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Looney AT, Nason GJ, McGuire BB et al (2014) Incidentalology: a developing urological sub-specialty. Surgeon 12(6):301–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2013.08.004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rasool S, Singh M, Jain S et al (2020) Comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted pyeloplasty for pelviureteric junction obstruction in adult patients. J Robot Surg 14(2):325–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00991-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hanske J, Sanchez A, Schmid M et al (2015) Comparison of 30-day perioperative outcomes in adults undergoing open versus minimally invasive pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: analysis of 593 patients in a prospective national database. World J Urol 33(12):2107–2113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1586-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Light A, Karthikeyan S, Maruthan S, Elhage O, Danuser H, Dasgupta P (2018) Peri-operative outcomes and complications after laparoscopic vs robot-assisted dismembered pyeloplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 122(2):181–194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Foley FE (2002) A new plastic operation for stricture at the uretero-pelvic junction. Report of 20 operations 1937. J Urol 167(2 Pt 2):1075–1095 (discussion 1096)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Anderson JC, Hynes W (1949) Retrocaval ureter; a case diagnosed pre-operatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation. Br J Urol 21(3):209–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.1949.tb10773.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nordic Adhesion Prevention Study Group (1995) The efficacy of Interceed(TC7)* for prevention of reformation of postoperative adhesions on ovaries, fallopian tubes, and fimbriae in microsurgical operations for fertility: a multicenter study. Fertil Steril 63(4):709–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Stamm AW, Akapame S, Durfy S, Kozlowski PM (2019) Robotic pyeloplasty in patients with equivocal diuretic renogram. Urology Pract 6(6):364–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jackman SV, Maganty A, Wolfson AB et al (2022) Resolution of hydronephrosis and pain to predict stone passage for patients with acute renal colic. Urology 01(159):48–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.09.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fontenot PA, Capoccia TR, Wilson B, Arthur A, Duchene DA (2016) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: analysis of symptomatic patients with equivocal renal scans. Urology 93:92–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.03.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Popelin MB, Pinar U, Benamran D et al (2021) Functional outcomes after robot-assisted pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a bi-centre experience. Int J Med Robot 17(2):e2201. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.2201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tobis S, Venigalla S, Balakumaran K et al (2013) Analysis of a large single-center experience with robot-assisted pyeloplasty. Int J Urol 20(2):230–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.03119.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nishi M, Matsumoto K, Fujita T, Iwamura M (2016) Improvement in renal function and symptoms of patients treated with laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction with less than 20% split renal function. J Endourol 30(11):1214–1218. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hopf HL, Bahler CD, Sundaram CP (2016) Long-term outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 90:106–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.12.050

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee D, Link RE (2014) Recurrent symptoms following pyeloplasty with a normal endoscopic evaluation: assessment and outcomes of a challenging patient cohort. Urology 84(1):227–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.03.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Smith Institute for Urology, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, NY, USA

    Sarah Razavi

  2. Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA

    Josh Babbin

  3. Department of Urology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114-2696, USA

    Douglas M. Dahl

Authors
  1. Sarah Razavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Josh Babbin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Douglas M. Dahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas M. Dahl.

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

Razavi, S., Babbin, J. & Dahl, D.M. Outcomes of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in symptomatic versus asymptomatic patients. World J Urol 41, 1959–1965 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04445-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04445-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation