Advertisement

Robotic Pyeloplasty

  • Ill Young SeoEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Pyeloplasty is one of the most effective treatments for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). Laparoscopic pyeloplasty has been performed as a less invasive surgery, and its success rates are similar to those of open surgery. Long-term follow-up results also indicate that laparoscopic pyeloplasty is one of the standard treatment for UPJO. However, intracorporeal suture has remained a technical weakness. The da Vinci surgical robot system can address this difficulty. The first case of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty was performed in 2000. After that, number of surgeries has been gradually increasing. The robot allows the surgeon to overcome the technical difficulties with intracorporeal suturing, which is the rate-limiting step in laparoscopic surgery. However, there are a few relevant papers for the robotic pyeloplasty, and the number of patients is small. If the number of the robotic pyeloplasty increases and a lot of related papers are published, the safety and effectiveness of the operation will be proven, and it will be the standard treatment for UPJO.

Keywords

Ureteropelvic junction obstruction Robotics Pyeloplasty 

References

  1. Atug F, Woods M, Burgess SV, et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children. J Urol. 2005;174:1440–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Autorino R, Cadeddu JA, Desai MM, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in urology: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol. 2011;59:26–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Autorino R, Eden C, El-Ghoneimi A, et al. Robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2014;65(2):430–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Babbar P, Hemal AK. Robot-assisted urologic surgery in 2010—advancements and future outlook. Urol Ann. 2011;3:1–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernardo N, Smith AD. Endopyelotomy review. Arch Esp Urol. 1999;52:541–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhayani SB, Link RE, Varkarakis JM, et al. Complete da Vinci versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty: cost analysis. J Endourol. 2005;19:327–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bird VG, Leveillee RJ, Eldefrawy A, et al. Comparison of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a single-center study. Urology. 2011;77:730–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braga LHP, Pace K, DeMaria J, 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;56:848–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooks JD, Kavoussi LR, Preminger GM, et al. Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urology. 1995;46:791–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cassis AN, Brannen GE, Bush WH, et al. Endopyelotomy: review of results and complications. J Urol. 1991;146:1492–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cestari A, Buffi NM, Lista G, et al. Feasibility and preliminary clinical outcomes of robotic laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty using a new single-port platform. Eur Urol. 2012;62:175–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chan KW, Lee KH, Tam YH, et al. Early experience of robotic-assisted reconstructive operations in pediatric urology. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2010;20:379–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis DM. Intubated ureterotomy; result after four years. J Urol. 1947;57:233–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erdeljan P, Caumartin Y, Warren J, et al. Robot-assisted pyeloplasty: follow-up of first Canadian experience with comparison of outcomes between experienced and trainee surgeons. J Endourol. 2010;24:1447–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Etafy M, Pick D, Said S, et al. Robotic pyeloplasty: the University of California-Irvine experience. J Urol. 2011;185:2196–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Georgiou AN, Rassweiler J, Herrmann TR, et al. Evolution and simplified terminology of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS), and mini-laparoscopy (ML). World J Urol. 2012;30:573–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerber GS, Kim JC. Ureteroscopic endopyelotomy in the treatment of patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 2000;55:198–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gettman MT, Peschel R, Neururer R, et al. A comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed with the daVinci robotic system versus standard laparoscopic techniques: initial clinical results. Eur Urol. 2002a;42:453–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, et al. Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology. 2002b;60(3):509–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gupta NP, Mukherjee S, Nayyar R, et al. Transmesocolic robot-assisted pyeloplasty: single center experience. J Endourol. 2009;23:945–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hollis MV, Cho PS, Yu RN. Pediatric robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Am J Robot Surg. 2015;2(1):1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hopf HL, Bahler CD, Sundaram CP. Long-term outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 2016;90:106–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Inagaki T, Rha KH, Ong AM, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: current status. BJU Int. 2005;95(Suppl 2):102–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jarrett TW, Chan DY, Charambura TC, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first 100 cases. J Urol. 2002;167:1253–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaouk JH, Goel RK, Haber GP, et al. Single-port laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2008;72:1190–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaouk JH, Goel RK, Haber GP, et al. Robotic single-port transumbilical surgery in humans: initial report. BJU Int. 2009;103:366–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaouk JH, Autorino R, Kim FJ, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in urology: worldwide multi-institutional analysis of 1076 cases. Eur Urol. 2011;60:998–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kavoussi LR, Peters CA. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150:1891–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kim SC, Kang T, Park H. Experience with laparoscopic pyeloplasty, including robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery, for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Korean J Urol. 2009;50:996–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kutikov A, Nguyen M, Guzzo T, et al. Robot assisted pyeloplasty in the infant-lessons learned. J Urol. 2006;176:2237–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Law J, Rowe N, Archambault J, et al. First Canadian experience with robotic single-incision pyeloplasty: comparison with multi-incision technique. Can Urol Assoc J. 2016;10(3–4):83–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Link RE, Bhayani SB, Kavoussi LR. A prospective comparison of robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Ann Surg. 2006;243:486–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lucas SM, Sundaram CP, Wolf JS, 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;187:522–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McClinton S, Steyn JH, Hussey JK. Retrograde balloon dilatation for pelviureteric junction obstruction. Br J Urol. 1993;71:152–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meretyk I, Meretyk S, Clayman RV. Endopyelotomy: comparison of ureteroscopic retrograde and antegrade percutaneous techniques. J Urol. 1992;148:775–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Minnillo BJ, Cruz JA, Sayao RH, et al. Long-term experience and outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children and young adults. J Urol. 2011;185:1455–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Motola JA, Badlani GH, Smith AD. Results of 221 consecutive endopyelotomies: an 8-year follow-up. J Urol. 1993;149:453–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mufarrij PW, Woods M, Shah OD, et al. Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience. J Urol. 2008;180:1391–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nakada SY, Johnson M. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Retrograde endopyelotomy. Urol Clin North Am. 2000;27:677–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Niver BE, Agalliu I, Bareket R, et al. Analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyleloplasty for primary versus secondary repair in 119 consecutive cases. Urology. 2012;79:689–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Notley RG, Beaugie JM. The long-term follow-up of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty for hydronephrosis. Br J Urol. 1973;45:464–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Reilly PH, Brooman PJ, Mak S, et al. The long-term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. BJU Int. 2001;87:287–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Olsen LH, Jorgensen TM. Computer assisted pyeloplasty in children: the retroperitoneal approach. J Urol. 2004;171:2629–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Olsen LH, Rawashdeh YF, Jorgensen TM. Pediatric robot assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty: a 5-year experience. J Urol. 2007;178:2137–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Olweny EO, Park SK, Tan YK, et al. Perioperative comparison of robotic assisted laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty versus conventional less pyeloplasty. Eur Urol. 2012;61:410–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Palese MA, Munver R, Phillips CK, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. JSLS. 2005;9(3):252–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Passerotti CC, Passerotti AM, Dall’Oglio MF, 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;208:576–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Persky L, Krause JR, Boltuch RL. Initial complications and late results in dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1977;118:162–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rassweiler JJ, Teber D, Frede T. Complications of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. World J Urol. 2008;26:539–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Samarasekera D, Stein RJ. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic approaches to the ureter: pyeloplasty and ureteral reimplantation. Indian J Urol. 2014;30(3):293–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, et al. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150:1795–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schwentner C, Pelzer A, Neururer R, et al. Robotic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty: 5-year experience of one centre. BJU Int. 2007;100:880–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Seideman CA, Sleeper JP, Lotan Y. Cost comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2012a;26:1044–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Seideman CA, Tan YK, Faddegon S, et al. Robot-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty: technique using the da vinci si robotic platform. J Endourol. 2012b;26:971–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Seo IY, Lee JW, Rim JS. Laparoendoscopic single-site radical nephrectomy: a comparison with conventional laparoscopy. J Endourol. 2011;25(3):465–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Seo IY, Oh TH, Lee JW. Long-term follow-up results of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Korean J Urol. 2014;55:656–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Singh P, Dogra PN, Kumar R, et al. Outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: a single center experience. J Endourol. 2012;26:249–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Siqueira TM Jr, Nadu A, Kuo RL, et al. Laparoscopic treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 2002;60:973–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sivaraman A, Leveillee RJ, Patel MB, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a multi-institutional experience. Urology. 2012;79(2):351–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Song SH, Lee C, Jung J, et al. A comparative study of pediatric open pyeloplasty, laparoscopy-assisted extracorporeal pyeloplasty, and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0175026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stein RJ, White WM, Goel RK, et al. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery using gelport as the access platform. Eur Urol. 2009;57:136–7.Google Scholar
  62. Tobis S, Venigalla S, Balakumaran K, et al. Analysis of a large single-center experience with robot-assisted pyeloplasty. Int J Urol. 2013;20(2):230–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tripp BM, Homsy YL. Neonatal hydronephrosis—the controversy and the management. Pediatr Nephrol. 1995;9:503–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weise ES, Winfield HN. Robotic computer-assisted pyeloplasty versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2006;20:813–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yanke BV, Lallas CD, Pagnani C, et al. The minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a review of our experience during the last decade. J Urol. 2008;180:1397–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urology, Institute of Wonkwang Medical ScienceWonkwang University School of MedicineIksanSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations