Abstract
The ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is a well-known urologic disease. To cure this problem, a lot of different operations are available. The best long-term results are produced by the so-called dismembered Anderson/Hynes pyeloplasty which was first published in 1949; this technique is considered today as the gold standard.
Due to shortcomings of the access trauma of a flank incision which is traditionally used to reach the kidney, minimal invasive procedures, for example, the laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, were introduced in modern urology as a new standard of care.
In plastic reconstructive kidney surgery, Schüssler et al. performed in 1993 the first dismembered laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Since then there has been an increasing number of publications and a growing adaption of the minimally invasive version of the dismembered pyeloplasty. Nowadays, we find several publications confirming the feasibility and good functional results of the laparoscopic pyeloplasty, which are comparable to the results of open procedures. Unfortunately in all laparoscopic plastic reconstructive procedures, suturing and tissue handling are very difficult and lead to a long learning curve, prolonged operation times, and the effect of the procedure was not always available. To overcome these problems and still give the benefit of minimal invasive surgery to the patient (less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, less pain, and better cosmesis) while on the other hand keeping the very good long-term results, the robotic version of the pyeloplasty carried out with the da Vinci system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, California) came in to play. Having all seven degrees of freedom for the instruments and a real three-dimensional view, this technical device can ease the learning curve for the procedure and still give excellent results to the patient.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anderson JC, Hynes W (1949) Retrocaval ureter; case diagnosed preoperatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation. Br J Urol 21:209
Tekgül S, Riedmiller H, Dogan HS, Gerharz E, Hoebeke P, Kocvara R, Nijman R, Chr. Radmayr, Stein R (2010) Members of the European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines Office. Guidelines on Paedatric urology. In: EAU Guidelines, edition presented at the 25th EAU Annual Congress, Barcelona. ISBN 978-90-79754-70-0
Fornara P, Doehn C, Seyfarth M, Jocham D (2000) Why is urological laparoscopy minimally invasive? Eur Urol 37:241–250
Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM (1993) Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 150:1795–1799
Da M et al (2006) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: evolution of a new gold standard. Urology 67:932–936
Imkamp F, Herrmann TR, Rassweiler J et al (2009) Laparoscopy in German urology: changing acceptance among urologists. Eur Urol 56(6):1074–1081. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.09.064
Cestari A, Buffi NM, Lista G, Sangalli M, Scapaticci E, Fabbri F, Lazzeri M, Rigatti P, Guazzoni G (2010) Retroperitoneal and transperitoneal robot-assisted pyeloplasty in adults: techniques and results. Eur Urol 58:711–718
Davenporta K, Minervinib A, Timoneya AG, Keeley FX Jr (2005) Our experience with retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. Eur Urol 48:973–977
Braga LHP, Pace K, de Maria J, Lorenzo AJ (2009) 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 56:848–858
Maynes LJ, Levin BM, Webster TM, Baldwin D, Herrell SD (2008) Measuring the true success of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 22(6):1193–1198
Lopez-Pujals A, Leveillee RJ, Wong C (2004) Application of strict radiologic criteria to define success in laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 18(8):756–760
Link RE, Bhayani SB, Kavoussi LR (2006) A prospective comparison of robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Ann Surg 243:486–491
Bernie JE, Venkatesh R, Brown J, Gardner TA, Sundaram CP (2005) Comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty with and without robotic assistance. JSLS 9:258–261
Atug F, Burgess S, Mendez-Torres F, Castle E, Thomas R (2005) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: comparing da Vinci robotic to classic laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Eur Urol 4(3):196
Persky L, Krause JR, Boltuch RL (1977) Initial complications and late results in dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 118:162
O’Reilly PH et al (2001) The long-term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. BJU Int 87:287–289
Psooy K, Pike JG, Leonard MP (2003) Long-term follow-up of pediatric dismembered pyeloplasty: how long is long enough? J Urol 169:1809–1812
Minnillo BJ, Cruz JA, Sayao RH, Passerotti CC, Houck CS, Meier PM, Borer JG, Diamond DA, Retik AB, Nguyen HT (2011) Long-term experience and outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children and young adults. J Urol 185(4):1455–1460, Epub 2011 Feb 19
Rassweiler J, Teber D, Frede T (2008) Complications of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. World J Urol 26:539–547
Kenngott HG, Muller-Stich BP, Reiter MA, Rassweiler J, Gutt CN (2008) Robotic suturing: technique and benefit in advanced laparoscopic surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 17(3):160–167
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Winkel, A., Kusche, D. (2013). Robotic Pyeloplasty. In: John, H., Wiklund, P. (eds) Robotic Urology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33215-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33215-9_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-33214-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-33215-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)