Abstract
Introduction
Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is a commonly encountered abnormality and it can lead to serious consequences such as renal dysplasia eventually resulting in loss of kidney. Hence, early diagnosis and timely management remains the cornerstone of the treatment. The most anticipated technique amongst modern day urologist is the robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP). The study aims to determine early post-operative outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty procedure in patients presenting with unilateral ureteropelvic junction obstruction to establish the local perspective.
Methodology
This is a descriptive study involving patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction in a tertiary care facility in Karachi; Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplant (SIUT). A total of 46 participants were recruited. Robot-assisted laparoscopic transperitoneal dismembered Hynes–Anderson pyeloplasty was performed by a single surgeon with over 3 years of experience in the presence of the researcher. Early postoperative outcome total operative time, length of hospital stay, console time and blood loss were noted by the researcher as per operational definition. Data were analyzed on SPSS Version 22.
Results
Mean age in our study was 46.51 years with the standard deviation of ± 10.87. Whereas, mean length of hospital stay, total operative time, total blood loss, console time, pre-hemoglobin, posthemoglobin, height, weight and BMI in our study was 1.19 ± 0.40 days, 64.58 ± 17.59 min, 9.56 ± 6.13 ml, 30.17 ± 4.99 min, 12.66 ± 1.47 ml, 11.79 ± 1.93 ml, 165.62 ± 8.23 cm, 68.34 ± 8.23 kg and 24.85 ± 3.34 kg/m2, respectively.
Conclusion
Recent advancements in technology have yielded the latest RALP technique which has been proven significantly better than existing approaches and similar results are reported by this study demonstrating improvement in peri-operative and post-operative outcomes ultimately ameliorating the quality of life of patients with UPJO.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Al Aaraj MS, Badreldin AM (2020) Ureteropelvic junction obstruction
Costigan CS, Rosenblum ND (2023) Understanding ureteropelvic junction obstruction: how far have we come? Front Urol 19(3):1154740
Strother MC, Mucksavage P (2016) Minimally invasive techniques for the management of adult UPJ obstruction. Curr Urol Rep 17:1–8
Pérez-Marchán M, Pérez-Brayfield M (2022) Comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty vs. robot-assisted pyeloplasty for the management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. Front Pediatr. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2022.1038454
Patel VR, Patil NN, Coughlin G, Dangle PP, Palmer K (2008) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a review of minimally invasive treatment options for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Robot Surg 1:247–252
Woodward M, Frank D (2002) Postnatal management of antenatal hydronephrosis. BJU Int 89(2):149–156
Singla N, Lay AH, Cadeddu JA (2016) Poor split renal function and age in adult patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction do not impact functional outcomes of pyeloplasty. Can J Urol 23(5):8457–8464
Freitas PF, Barbosa JA, Andrade HS, Arap MA, Mitre AI, Nahas WC, Srougi M, Duarte RJ, Srougi V (2021) Pyeloplasty in adults with ureteropelvic junction obstruction in poorly functioning kidneys: a systematic review. Urology 1(156):e66-73
Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R (2002) Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology 60(3):509–513
Moretto S, Gandi C, Bientinesi R, Totaro A, Marino F, Gavi F, Russo A, Aceto P, Pierconti F, Bassi P, Sacco E (2023) Robotic versus open pyeloplasty: perioperative and functional outcomes. J Clin Med 12(7):2538
Rasool S, Singh M, Jain S, Chaddha S, Tyagi V, Pahwa M, Pandey H (2020) Comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted pyeloplasty for pelviureteric junction obstruction in adult patients. J Robot Surg 14:325–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00991-6
Palese MA, Stifelman MD, Munver R, Sosa RE, Philipps CK, Dinlenc C, Pizzo JJ (2005) Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: a combined experience. J Endourol 19(3):382–386
Patel V (2005) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology 66(1):45–49
Schwentner C, Pelzer A, Neururer R, Springer B, Horninger W, Bartsch G, Peschel R (2007) Robotic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty: 5-year experience of one centre. BJU Int 100(4):880–885
Yacobi Y, Abu-Ghanem Y, Dotan ZA, Kleinmann N, Mor Y, Zilberman DE (2021) Robot assisted pyeloplasty in adults with uretero-pelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). Harefuah 160(9):570–575
Carmona O, Dotan ZA, Haifler M, Rosenzweig B, Zilberman DE (2022) Laparoscopic versus robot-assisted pyeloplasty in adults—a single-center experience. J Pers Med 12(10):1586
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(5):848–858
Shrivastava N, Bhargava P, Jain P, Choudhary GR, Jena R, Singh M, Navriya S, Madduri VK, Bhirud DP, Sandhu AS (2024) Robot-assisted ureteric reconstructive surgeries for benign diseases: initial single-center experience with point of technique. Urol J 12:03915603241229144
Tatenuma T, Ito H, Komeya M, Ito Y, Muraoka K, Hasumi H, Hayashi N, Makiyama K (2023) Comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted pyeloplasty for uretero-pelvic junction obstruction initial experience from a single center. nihon hinyokika gakkai zasshi. Jpn J Urol 114(1):1–7
Chammas MF Jr, Mitre AI, Hubert N, Egrot C, Hubert J (2014) Robotic laparoscopic pyeloplasty. JSLS J Soc Laparoendosc Surg. https://doi.org/10.4293/108680813X1369342251983
Wood TC, Raison N, El-Hage O, Ahmed K, Cahill D, Challacombe BJ, Khan MS, Dasgupta P (2018) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a single-centre experience. Surg Endosc 32:4590–4596
Sivaraman A, Leveillee RJ, Patel MB, Chauhan S, Bracho JE II, Moore CR, Coelho RF, Palmer KJ, Schatloff O, Bird VG, Munver R (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a multi-institutional experience. Urology 79(2):351–355
Hall RM, Murphy DG, Challacombe B, Costello AJ, Kearsley J (2010) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: initial Australasian experience. J Robot Surg 3:209–213
Razavi S, Babbin J, Dahl D (2023) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty is a valid option for ureteropelvic junction obstruction repair in adults with congenital renal abnormalities: a case series study. BMC Urol 23(1):138
Jensen PH, Berg KD, Azawi NH (2017) Robot-assisted pyeloplasty and pyelolithotomy in patients with ureteropelvic junction stenosis. Scand J Urol 51(4):323–328
Mendrek M, Vögeli TA, Bach C (2019) Recent advances in urologic surgical techniques for pyeloplasty. F1000Res. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15866.1
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors herein declare no conflicts of interest and there was no funding received from any source for this study. All the authors have read the final version of manuscripts and, therefore, authorize the corresponding author for the submission of this study.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Ali, R., Mohsin, R., Khan, A. et al. Early post-operative outcomes of robot-assisted pyeloplasty in patients with unilateral ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Int Urol Nephrol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-024-04010-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-024-04010-y