Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Current Indications for Robotic Surgery in Pediatric Urology

  • Pediatric Urology (BA VanderBrink and RP Pramod, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Pediatrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of review

Over the last decade, the use of the robotic surgical system has significantly increased in the pediatric population and new indications for the robot are being developed. We aim to explore the current indications for robotic urologic surgery in children.

Recent findings

Robotic surgeries in urology has been found to have similar outcomes to equivalent open surgeries while also providing decreased post-operative length of hospitalization and post-operative narcotic usage. Recent results suggest that robotic incisions do not grow significantly as patients grow and may have better cosmetic outcomes in the long term. Robotic pyeloplasty and extravesical ureteral reimplantation have shown to have excellent results, including in complicated and re-operative cases. Urologic reconstruction techniques are described using the robotic surgical system as well with promising early results though techniques are still developing. Overall, robotic surgery is generally more expensive than open surgery.

Summary

Robotic surgery in urology has many indications, including pyeloplasty, ureteral reimplantation, nephrectomy or partial nephrectomy, oncology, and reconstruction for neurogenic bowel and bladder. The use of the robotic system is safe and effective for these procedures with similar outcomes and operative metrics to open surgeries while conferring the advantage of decreased length of post-operative hospitalization and decreased post-operative narcotic usage.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance  •• Of major importance

  1. Mahida JB, Cooper JN, Herz D, Diefenbach KA, Deans KJ, Minneci PC, et al. Utilization and costs associated with robotic surgery in children. J Surg Res. 2015;199(1):169–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kawal T, Srinivasan AK, Shrivastava D, Chu DI, Van Batavia J, Weiss D, et al. Pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Does age matter? J Pediatr Urol. 2018;14(6):540 e1-e6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kim PH, Patil MB, Kim SS, Dorey F, De Filippo RE, Chang AY, et al. Early comparison of nephrectomy options in children (open, transperitoneal laparoscopic, laparo-endoscopic single site (LESS), and robotic surgery). BJU Int. 2012;109(6):910–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. • Janssen KM, Kirsch AJ. Outcomes of complex robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation after failed ipsilateral endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux. J Pediatr Urol. 2021;17(4):5471 e1-e6. This study demonstated fairly high radiographic success rate for robotic reimplantation for reflux. In addition, the study also showed equivalent outcomes between open and robotic surgery for complex cases with respect to improvement of hydronephrosis after surgery for obstruction, complications, and clinical success after discontinuation of antibiotic prophylaxis.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. •• Ghidini F, Bortot G, Gnech M, Contini G, Escolino M, Esposito C, et al. Comparison of cosmetic results in children >10 years old undergoing open, laparoscopic or robotic-assisted pyeloplasty: a multicentric study. J Urol. 2022;207(5):1118–26. This study found that scars from open pyeloplasty are significantly larger after follow-up than robotic or laparoscopic pyeloplasty total incision length. Open pyeloplasty scars were also more commonly associated with hyperesthesia compared to other methods.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gargollo PC. Hidden incision endoscopic surgery: description of technique, parental satisfaction and applications. J Urol. 2011;185(4):1425–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hong YH, DeFoor WR Jr, Reddy PP, Schulte M, Minevich EA, VanderBrink BA, et al. Hidden incision endoscopic surgery (HIdES) trocar placement for pediatric robotic pyeloplasty: comparison to traditional port placement. J Robot Surg. 2018;12(1):43–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bruns NE, Soldes OS, Ponsky TA. Robotic surgery may not “make the cut” in pediatrics. Front Pediatr. 2015;3:10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bansal D, Cost NG, DeFoor WR Jr, Reddy PP, Minevich EA, Vanderbrink BA, et al. Infant robotic pyeloplasty: comparison with an open cohort. J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10(2):380–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Varda BK, Wang Y, Chung BI, Lee RS, Kurtz MP, Nelson CP, et al. Has the robot caught up? National trends in utilization, perioperative outcomes, and cost for open, laparoscopic, and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty in the United States from 2003 to 2015. J Pediatr Urol. 2018;14(4):336 e1-e8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. •• Mittal S, Aghababian A, Eftekharzadeh S, Dinardo L, Weaver J, Weiss DA, et al. Primary vs redo robotic pyeloplasty: a comparison of outcomes. J Pediatr Urol. 2021;17(4):528 e1-e7. This study showed that redo robotic pyeloplasty took significantly longer and had a longer length of stay versus primary robotic pyeloplasty. However, the group also found that outcomes regarding need for additional endoscopic procedures or reconstruction, post-operative complications, and success rates were equivalent between the two groups.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee Z, Lee M, Koster H, Lee R, Cheng N, Jun M, et al. A multi-institutional experience with robotic ureteroplasty with buccal mucosa graft: an updated analysis of intermediate-term outcomes. Urology. 2021;147:306–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ahn JJ, Shapiro ME, Ellison JS, Lendvay TS. Pediatric robot-assisted redo pyeloplasty with buccal mucosa graft: a novel technique. Urology. 2017;101:56–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chiarenza SF, Bucci V, Zolpi E, La Pergola E, Bleve C, Fasoli L. Retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy in pediatric patients. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2021;31(10):1209–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee NG, Corbett ST, Cobb K, Bailey GC, Burns AS, Peters CA. Bi-institutional comparison of robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open ureteroureterostomy in the pediatric population. J Endourol. 2015;29(11):1237–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chertin L, Neeman BB, Stav K, Noh PH, Koucherov S, Gaber J, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic ipsilateral uretero-ureterostomy for upper urinary tract duplications in the pediatric population: a multi-institutional review of outcomes and complications. J Pediatr Surg. 2021;56(12):2377–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Villanueva CA. Open vs robotic infant ureteroureterostomy. J Pediatr Urol. 2019;15(4):390 e1-e4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ballouhey Q, Binet A, Clermidi P, Braik K, Villemagne T, Cros J, et al. Partial nephrectomy for small children: Robot-assisted versus open surgery. Int J Urol. 2017;24(12):855–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Mason MD, Anthony Herndon CD, Smith-Harrison LI, Peters CA, Corbett ST. Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy in duplicated collecting systems in the pediatric population: techniques and outcomes. J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10(2):374–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Neheman A, Kord E, Strine AC, VanderBrink BA, Minevich EA, DeFoor WR, et al. Pediatric partial nephrectomy for upper urinary tract duplication anomalies: a comparison between different surgical approaches and techniques. Urology. 2019;125:196–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Varda BK, Rajender A, Yu RN, Lee RS. A contemporary single-institution retrospective cohort study comparing perioperative outcomes between robotic and open partial nephrectomy for poorly functioning renal moieties in children with duplex collecting systems. J Pediatr Urol. 2018;14(6):549.e1-e8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Malik RD, Pariser JJ, Gundeti MS. Outcomes in pediatric robot-assisted laparoscopic heminephrectomy compared with contemporary open and laparoscopic series. J Endourol. 2015;29(12):1346–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Joyeux L, Lacreuse I, Schneider A, Moog R, Borgnon J, Lopez M, et al. Long-term functional renal outcomes after retroperitoneoscopic upper pole heminephrectomy for duplex kidney in children: a multicenter cohort study. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(3):1241–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Smith RP, Oliver JL, Peters CA. Pediatric robotic extravesical ureteral reimplantation: comparison with open surgery. J Urol. 2011;185(5):1876–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Boysen WR, Akhavan A, Ko J, Ellison JS, Lendvay TS, Huang J, et al. Prospective multicenter study on robot-assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation (RALUR-EV): Outcomes and complications. J Pediatr Urol. 2018;14(3):262 e1-e6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Grimsby GM, Dwyer ME, Jacobs MA, Ost MC, Schneck FX, Cannon GM, et al. Multi-institutional review of outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation. J Urol. 2015;193(5 Suppl):1791–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Harel M, Herbst KW, Silvis R, Makari JH, Ferrer FA, Kim C. Objective pain assessment after ureteral reimplantation: comparison of open versus robotic approach. J Pediatr Urol. 2015;11(2):82 e1-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Arlen AM, Broderick KM, Travers C, Smith EA, Elmore JM, Kirsch AJ. Outcomes of complex robot-assisted extravesical ureteral reimplantation in the pediatric population. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12(3):169 e1-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Villanueva CA. Extracorporeal ureteral tailoring during HIDES laparoscopic robotic-assisted ureteral reimplantation for megaureter. J Pediatr Urol. 2015;11(6):362–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rivera M, Granberg CF, Tollefson MK. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery of urachal anomalies: a single-center experience. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2015;25(4):291–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ahmed H, Howe AS, Dyer LL, Fine RG, Gitlin JS, Schlussel RN, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic urachal excision in children. Urology. 2017;106:103–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Osumah TS, Granberg CF, Butaney M, Gearman DJ, Ahmed M, Gargollo PC. Robot-assisted laparoscopic urachal excision using hidden incision endoscopic surgery technique in pediatric patients. J Endourol. 2021;35(6):937–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Bagrodia A, Gargollo P. Robot-assisted bladder neck reconstruction, bladder neck sling, and appendicovesicostomy in children: description of technique and initial results. J Endourol. 2011;25(8):1299–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Grimsby GM, Jacobs MA, Menon V, Schlomer BJ, Gargollo PC. Perioperative and short-term outcomes of robotic vs open bladder neck procedures for neurogenic incontinence. J Urol. 2016;195(4 Pt 1):1088–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Galvez C, Lopategui DM, Horodyski L, Castellan M. Totally robotic intracorporeal Monti-Yang continent ileovesicostomy in patient with previous robotic surgery–technique description. J Pediatr Urol. 2021;17(4):579–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gundeti MS, Petravick ME, Pariser JJ, Pearce SM, Anderson BB, Grimsby GM, et al. A multi-institutional study of perioperative and functional outcomes for pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12(6):386 e1-e5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lecoanet P, Pascal G, Khaddad A, Hubert N, Lemelle JL, Berte N, et al. Robot-assisted continent urinary diversion according to the Mitrofanoff principle: results of a bicentric study. World J Urol. 2021;39(6):2073–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. • Galansky L, Andolfi C, Adamic B, Gundeti MS. Continent cutaneous catheterizable channels in pediatric patients: a decade of experience with open and robotic approaches in a single center. Eur Urol. 2021;79(6):866–78. This study demonstrated the feasibility of creation of continent cutanous catheterizable channels robotically. It found decreased length of stay for patients undergoing robotic procedures as compared to those undergoing open procedures. Complication rates and rates of continence were equivalent between the two groups.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Cohen AJ, Brodie K, Murthy P, Wilcox DT, Gundeti MS. Comparative outcomes and perioperative complications of robotic vs open cystoplasty and complex reconstructions. Urology. 2016;97:172–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Halleran DR, Wood RJ, Vilanova-Sanchez A, Rentea RM, Brown C, Fuchs M, et al. Simultaneous robotic-assisted laparoscopy for bladder and bowel reconstruction. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2018;28(12):1513–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Chelluri R, Daugherty M, Abouelleil M, Riddell JV. Robotic conversion of cecostomy tube to catheterizable antegrade continence enema (ACE): surgical technique. J Pediatr Surg. 2018;53(9):1871–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Brown CT, Sebastiao YV, Zann A, McLeod DJ, DaJusta D. Utilization of robotics for retroperitoneal lymph-node dissection in pediatric and non-pediatric hospitals. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(6):865–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Glaser AP, Bowen DK, Lindgren BW, Meeks JJ. Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RA-RPLND) in the adolescent population. J Pediatr Urol. 2017;13(2):223–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Finkelstein JB, Van Batavia JP, Casale P. Is outpatient robotic pyeloplasty feasible? J Robot Surg. 2016;10(3):233–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. •• Neheman A, Kord E, VanderBrink BA, Minevich EA, Noh PH. Outpatient robotic surgery in pediatric urology: assessment of feasibility and short-term safety. J Urol. 2022;207(4):894–900. This study found that outpatient robotic surgery for a variety of procedures could be safely performed with low complication rates as well as low numbers of emergency room visits and rates of readmission.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Bennett WE Jr, Whittam BM, Szymanski KM, Rink RC, Cain MP, Carroll AE. Validated cost comparison of open vs. robotic pyeloplasty in American children’s hospitals. J Robot Surg. 2017;11(2):201–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Assistant Professor of Urology, Department of Urology Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, 17033, USA

    Thomas FitzGibbon Jr MD, MS

  2. Division of Urology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Ave, Cincinnati, OH, 45229, USA

    Michael Daugherty MD

Authors
  1. Thomas FitzGibbon Jr MD, MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Daugherty MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Daugherty MD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Thomas FitzGibbon Jr declares that he has no conflict of interest. Michael Daugherty declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies that used human, or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Pediatric Urology

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

FitzGibbon, T., Daugherty, M. Current Indications for Robotic Surgery in Pediatric Urology. Curr Treat Options Peds 9, 11–22 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40746-023-00262-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40746-023-00262-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation