Abstract
Within the last decade, the adaptation of robotic urologic surgery has had a profound impact on surgical practice, with robotic upper tract reconstruction for ureteropelvic junction obstruction gaining rapid acceptance. Recent advances in robotic reconstruction demonstrate efficacious outcomes of robotic pyeloplasty, as compared with conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty, even in the case of secondary surgery. Furthermore, efforts to continue to reduce the morbidity of laparoscopic surgery have led to the development and implementation of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery. The recent applications of the da Vinci robotic surgical platform to LESS pyeloplasty (R-LESS) has demonstrated the potential to further decrease morbidity, improve surgeon ergonomics, and improve cosmesis.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
Gettman MT, et al. Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology. 2002;60(3):509–13.
•• Braga LH, et al. 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. 2009;56(5):848–57. The Braga et al. metanalysis represents the most comprehensive paper that looks at robotic pyeloplasty compared to conventional laparoscopy. It demonstrates equivalence of the two techniques, and serves as a strong foundation for the adaptation of the robotic technique.
El-Shazly MA, Moon DA, Eden CG. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: status and review of literature. J Endourol. 2007;21(7):673–8.
Singh I, Hemal AK. Robot-assisted pyeloplasty: review of the current literature, technique and outcome. Can J Urol. 2010;17(2):5099–108.
Schuessler WW, et al. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150(6):1795–9.
Passerotti CC, et al. Comparing the quality of the suture anastomosis and the learning curves associated with performing open, freehand, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in a swine animal model. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208(4):576–86.
Mei H, et al. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol. 2011;25(5):727–36.
Vemulakonda VM, et al. Surgical management of congenital ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a Pediatric Health Information System database study. J Urol. 2008;180(4 Suppl):1689–92. discussion 1692.
Nelson CP, et al. Contemporary trends in surgical correction of pediatric ureteropelvic junction obstruction: data from the nationwide inpatient sample. J Urol. 2005;173(1):232–6.
Nelson CP, et al. Contemporary trends in surgical correction of pediatric ureteropelvic junction obstruction: data from the nationwide inpatient sample. J Urol. 2005;173(1):232–6.
• Sukumar S, et al. National trends and disparities in the use of minimally invasive adult pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2012;188(3)):913–8. Sukumar et al. demonstrates the national practice patterns, and highlights that robotic pyeloplasties are now performed more commonly than conventional laparoscopy, despite being underutilized compared to open surgery.
Sivaraman A, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a multi-institutional experience. Urology. 2012;79((2):351–5.
Niver BE, et al. Analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyleloplasty for primary versus secondary repair in 119 consecutive cases. Urology. 2012;79(3)):689–94.
Thom MR, et al. Robot-assisted pyeloplasty: outcomes for primary and secondary repairs, a single institution experience. Int Braz J Urol. 2012;38(1):77–83.
Desai MM, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: initial hundred patients. Urology. 2009;74(4):805–12.
White WM, et al. Single-port urological surgery: single-center experience with the first 100 cases. Urology. 2009;74(4):801–4.
Tracy CR, et al. Perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing conventional laparoscopic versus laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty. Urology. 2009;74((5):1029–34.
Olweny, E.O., et al., Importance of cosmesis to patients undergoing renal surgery: a comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS), laparoscopic and open surgery. BJU Int, 2011
Best SL, et al. Complications during the initial experience with aparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty. BJU Int. 2011;108(8):1326–9.
Desai MM, et al. Scarless single port transumbilical nephrectomy and pyeloplasty: first clinical report. BJU Int. 2008;101(1):83–8.
Best, S.L., et al., Complications during the initial experience with laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty. BJU Int, 2011
Joseph RA, et al. "Chopstick" surgery: a novel technique improves surgeon performance and eliminates arm collision in robotic single-incision laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(6):1331–5.
• Seideman CA, et al. Robot-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty: technique using the da vinci si robotic platform. J Endourol. 2012;26(8):971–4. Seideman et al. outlines the technique for robotic laparoendoscopic pyeloplasty, to aid in the adoption of this subspecialized procedure.
Cestari A, et al. Feasibility and preliminary clinical outcomes of robotic laparoendoscopic single-site (R-LESS) pyeloplasty using a new single-port platform. Eur Urol. 2012;62(1):175–9.
Lotan Y. Economics of robotics in urology. Curr Opin Urol. 2010;20(1):92–7.
Seideman CA, Sleeper JP, Lotan Y. Cost comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2012;26(8):1044–8.
Descazeaud A, Peyromaure M, Zerbib M. Will robotic surgery become the gold standard for radical prostatectomy? Eur Urol. 2007;51(1):9–11.
Morino M, et al. Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Br J Surg. 2006;93(5):553–8.
Smith A, et al. Cost analysis of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. J Urol. 2010;183(2):505–9.
Disclosure
C. A. Seideman, A. Bagrodia, and J. Gahan reported no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article; J. A. Cadeddu reported a patent (planned, pending, or issued) to his institution from Ethicon Endosurgery.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Seideman, C.A., Bagrodia, A., Gahan, J. et al. Robotic-Assisted Pyeloplasty:Recent Developments in Efficacy, Outcomes, and New Techniques. Curr Urol Rep 14, 37–40 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-012-0291-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-012-0291-8