Advertisement

Robotic Pyeloplasty

  • Naveen Kachroo
  • Sri Sivalingam
  • Sara L. BestEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Pyeloplasty remains the gold standard treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. With the introduction of laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the 1990s, patients with this condition began to reap the benefits of minimally invasive reconstructive surgery, though the technical complexity of intracorporeal suturing impaired the rapid widespread adoption of the laparoscopic approach. With the introduction of the robotic surgical platform, however, the hurdles of learning curve and intracorporeal suturing were lowered, improving access to minimally invasive pyeloplasty. Robotic pyeloplasty has demonstrated therapeutic equivalence to laparoscopic pyeloplasty with a faster learning curve and easier adoption than standard laparoscopy due to its distinct advantage with intracorporeal suturing. In addition, the non-extirpative nature of pyeloplasty has made it an appealing target for technological advances on the horizon of minimally invasive surgery, such as laparoendoscopic single-site surgery. This chapter details the application of robotic pyeloplasty, with specific details and images on operative technique. Contemporary outcomes and complications of this procedure are also presented.

Keywords

Ureteropelvic junction obstruction Pyeloplasty Robotic surgery Laparoendoscopic single site surgery 

References

  1. 1.
    Winfield HN. Management of adult ureteropelvic junction obstruction--is it time for a new gold standard? J Urol. 2006;176(3):866–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kavoussi LR, Peters CA. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150(6):1891–4.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150(6):1795–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R. Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology. 2002;60(3):509–13.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Klingler HC, Remzi M, Janetschek G, Kratzik C, Marberger MJ. Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol. 2003;44(3):340–5.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bauer JJ, Bishoff JT, Moore RG, Chen RN, Iverson AJ, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: assessment of objective and subjective outcome. J Urol. 1999;162(3 Pt 1):692–5.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brooks JD, Kavoussi LR, Preminger GM, Schuessler WW, Moore RG. Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urology. 1995;46(6):791–5.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baldwin DD, Dunbar JA, Wells N, McDougall EM. Single-center comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, Acucise endopyelotomy, and open pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2003;17(3):155–60.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Braga LH, Pace K, DeMaria J, Lorenzo AJ. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bird VG, Leveillee RJ, Eldefrawy A, Bracho J, Aziz MS. Comparison of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a single-center study. Urology. 2011;77(3):730–4.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kawachi MH. Counterpoint: robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: perhaps the surgical gold standard for prostate cancer care. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2007;5(7):689–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Willis DL, Gonzalgo ML, Brotzman M, Feng Z, Trock B, Su LM. Comparison of outcomes between pure laparoscopic vs robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a study of comparative effectiveness based upon validated quality of life outcomes. BJU Int. 2012;109(6):898–905.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Monn MF, Bahler CD, Schneider EB, Sundaram CP. Emerging trends in robotic pyeloplasty for the management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults. J Urol. 2013;189(4):1352–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sukumar S, Sun M, Karakiewicz PI, Friedman AA, Chun FK, Sammon J, et al. National trends and disparities in the use of minimally invasive adult pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2012;188(3):913–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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.e1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Song SH, Lee C, Jung J, Kim SJ, Park S, Park H, et al. A comparative study of pediatric open pyeloplasty, laparoscopy-assisted extracorporeal pyeloplasty, and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0175026.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Silay MS, Spinoit AF, Undre S, Fiala V, Tandogdu Z, Garmanova T, et al. Global minimally invasive pyeloplasty study in children: results from the Pediatric Urology Expert Group of the European Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists working party. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12(4):229.e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Patel A, Pickhardt MW, Littlejohn N, Zamilpa I, Rettiganti M, Luo C, et al. Shortened operative time for pediatric robotic versus laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Can J Urol. 2016;23(3):8308–11.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ganpule A, Jairath A, Singh A, Mishra S, Sabnis R, Desai M. Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children less than 20 kg by weight: single-center experience. World J Urol. 2015;33(11):1867–73.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pahwa M, Pahwa AR, Girotra M, Abrahm RR, Kathuria S, Sharma A. Defining the pros and cons of open, conventional laparoscopy, and robot-assisted pyeloplasty in a developing nation. Adv Urol. 2014;2014:850156.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Basatac C, Boylu U, Onol FF, Gumus E. Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Turk J Urol. 2014;40(1):24–30.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Danuser H, Germann C, Pelzer N, Ruhle A, Stucki P, Mattei A. One- vs 4-week stent placement after laparoscopic and robot-assisted pyeloplasty: results of a prospective randomised single-centre study. BJU Int. 2014;113(6):931–5.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Riachy E, Cost NG, Defoor WR, Reddy PP, Minevich EA, Noh PH. Pediatric standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a comparative single institution study. J Urol. 2013;189(1):283–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kumar R, Nayak B. Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a single surgeon concurrent cohort review. Indian J Urol. 2013;29(1):19–21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Olweny EO, Park SK, Tan YK, Gurbuz C, Cadeddu JA, Best SL. Perioperative comparison of robotic assisted laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) pyeloplasty versus conventional LESS pyeloplasty. Eur Urol. 2012;61(2):410–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Subotic U, Rohard I, Weber DM, Gobet R, Moehrlen U, Gonzalez R. A minimal invasive surgical approach for children of all ages with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Pediatr Urol. 2012;8(4):354–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Garcia-Galisteo E, Emmanuel-Tejero E, Navarro Vilchez P, Garcia-Galisteo J, Baena-Gonzalez V. [Comparison of the operation time and complications between conventional and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty]. Actas Urol Esp. 2011;35(9):523–8. [Article in Spanish].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hemal AK, Mukherjee S, Singh K. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus robotic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a series of 60 cases performed by a single surgeon. Can J Urol. 2010;17(1):5012–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kim S, Canter D, Leone N, Patel R, Casale P. A comparative study between laparoscopic and robotically assisted pyeloplasty in the pediatric population. J Urol. 2008;179:357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Link RE, Bhayani SB, Kavoussi LR. A prospective comparison of robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Ann Surg. 2006;243(4):486–91.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Weise ES, Winfield HN. Robotic computer-assisted pyeloplasty versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2006;20(10):813–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang F, Xu Y, Zhong H. Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Urol. 2013;47(4):251–64.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Autorino R, Eden C, El-Ghoneimi A, Guazzoni G, Buffi N, Peters CA, et al. Robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2014;65(2):430–52.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Light A, Karthikeyan S, Maruthan S, Elhage O, Danuser H, Dasgupta P. Peri-operative outcomes and complications after laparoscopic vs robot-assisted dismembered pyeloplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2018;122(2):181–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Olsen LH, Jorgensen TM. Computer assisted pyeloplasty in children: the retroperitoneal approach. J Urol. 2004;171(6 Pt 2):2629–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kaouk JH, Hafron J, Parekattil S, Moinzadeh A, Stein R, Gill IS, et al. Is retroperitoneal approach feasible for robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: initial experience and long-term results. J Endourol. 2008;22(9):2153–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cestari A, Buffi NM, Lista G, Sangalli M, Scapaticci E, Fabbri F, et al. Retroperitoneal and transperitoneal robot-assisted pyeloplasty in adults: techniques and results. Eur Urol. 2010;58(5):711–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Khoder WY, Waidelich R, Ghamdi AMA, Schulz T, Becker A, Stief CG. A prospective randomised comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneoscopic approaches for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in a single surgeon, single centre study. J Robot Surg. 2018;12(1):131–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Best SL, Donnally C, Mir SA, Tracy CR, Raman JD, Cadeddu JA. Complications during the initial experience with laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty. BJU Int. 2011;108(8):1326–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tracy CR, Raman JD, Bagrodia A, Cadeddu JA. Perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing conventional laparoscopic versus laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty. Urology. 2009;74(5):1029–34.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tobis S, Houman J, Thomer M, Rashid H, Wu G. Robot-assisted transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty: technique and perioperative outcomes from a single institution. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2013;23(8):702–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rais-Bahrami S, Rizkala ER, Cadeddu JA, Tugcu V, Derweesh IH, Abdel-Karim AM, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty: outcomes of an international multi-institutional study of 140 patients. Urology. 2013;82(2):366–72.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Buffi NM, Lughezzani G, Fossati N, Lazzeri M, Guazzoni G, Lista G, et al. Robot-assisted, single-site, dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction with the new da Vinci platform: a stage 2a study. Eur Urol. 2015;67(1):151–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sorokin I, Canvasser NE, Irwin B, Autorino R, Liatsikos EN, Cadeddu JA, et al. The Decline of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: a survey of the endourological society to identify shortcomings and guidance for future directions. J Endourol. 2017;31(10):1049–55.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Moreno-Sierra J, Castillon-Vela I, Ortiz-Oshiro E, Galante-Romo I, Fernandez-Perez C, Senovilla-Perez JL, et al. Robotic Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty: initial experience. Int J Med Robot. 2013;9(2):127–33.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sivaraman A, Leveillee RJ, Patel MB, Chauhan S, Bracho JE 2nd, Moore CR, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a multi-institutional experience. Urology. 2012;79(2):351–5.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Niver BE, Agalliu I, Bareket R, Mufarrij P, Shah O, Stifelman MD. Analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyleloplasty for primary versus secondary repair in 119 consecutive cases. Urology. 2012;79(3):689–94.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Etafy M, Pick D, Said S, Hsueh T, Kerbl D, Mucksavage P, et al. Robotic pyeloplasty: the University of California-Irvine experience. J Urol. 2011;185(6):2196–200.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sethi AS, Regan SM, Sundaram CP. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty with and without a ureteral stent. J Endourol. 2011;25(2):239–43.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Erdeljan P, Caumartin Y, Warren J, Nguan C, Nott L, Luke PP, et al. Robot-assisted pyeloplasty: follow-up of first Canadian experience with comparison of outcomes between experienced and trainee surgeons. J Endourol. 2010;24(9):1447–50.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lucas SM, Sundaram CP, Wolf JS Jr, Leveillee RJ, Bird VG, Aziz M, et al. Factors that impact the outcome of minimally invasive pyeloplasty: results of the Multi-institutional Laparoscopic and Robotic Pyeloplasty Collaborative Group. J Urol. 2012;187(2):522–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naveen Kachroo
    • 1
  • Sri Sivalingam
    • 1
  • Sara L. Best
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of UrologyGlickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyUniversity of Wisconsin, School of Medicine and Public HealthMadisonUSA
  3. 3.William S. Middleton Veterans Memorial HospitalMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations