Journal of Robotic Surgery

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 215–217 | Cite as

Prospective analysis of completely stentless robot-assisted pyeloplasty in children

Original Article


Robot-assisted pyeloplasty (RAP) is emerging as an effective tool for treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) in the pediatric population. Typically stents are utilized for RAP and removed four weeks after the procedure. We present our prospective experience with stentless RAP. Twenty children between the ages of 12 and 113 months (mean age 56 months) underwent transperitoneal RAP for UPJO utilizing the DaVinci surgical system. Outcome measures included operative time, length of hospital stay, and resolution of obstruction by ultrasonography, magnetic resonance urography (MRU), and/or diuretic radionuclide imaging (DRI). All patients successfully underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty without conversion to pure laparoscopy or open procedure. Mean operative time was 124.7 min with a mean console time of 82.3 min. The mean hospital stay was 18 h. Of the 20 patients, 13/20 (65%) had resolution or improvement in the degree of hydronephrosis. The other patients had no evidence of obstruction based upon follow-up MRU or DRI. Stentless RAP is a safe and effective option for surgical treatment of UPJO. A larger prospective long-term cohort is needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of the stentless approach.


Kidney Laparoscopy Ureter Child 


  1. 1.
    Lee DI, Eichel L, Skarecky DW, Ahlering TE (2004) Robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a single assistant. Urology 63(6):1172–1175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atug F, Woods M, Burgess SV, Castle EP, Thomas R (2005) Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children. J Urol 174(4 Pt 1):1440–1442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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(2):683–687 (discussion 687)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kutikov A, Resnick M, Casale P (2006) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the infant younger than 6 months—is it technically possible? J Urol 175(4):1477–1479CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Casale P (2009) Robotic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population (review). Curr Opin Urol 19(1):97–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kavoussi LR, Peters CA (1993) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol 150:1891PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Casale P (2008) Robotic pediatric urology (review). Expert Rev Med Devices 5(1):59–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Children’s Hospital of PhiladelphiaUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations