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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Atug F, Woods M, Burgess SV, et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children. J Urol. 2005;174:1440–2.
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.
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.
Babbar P, Hemal AK. Robot-assisted urologic surgery in 2010—advancements and future outlook. Urol Ann. 2011;3:1–7.
Bernardo N, Smith AD. Endopyelotomy review. Arch Esp Urol. 1999;52:541–8.
Bhayani SB, Link RE, Varkarakis JM, et al. Complete da Vinci versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty: cost analysis. J Endourol. 2005;19:327–32.
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.
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.
Brooks JD, Kavoussi LR, Preminger GM, et al. Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urology. 1995;46:791–5.
Cassis AN, Brannen GE, Bush WH, et al. Endopyelotomy: review of results and complications. J Urol. 1991;146:1492–5.
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.
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.
Davis DM. Intubated ureterotomy; result after four years. J Urol. 1947;57:233–7.
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.
Etafy M, Pick D, Said S, et al. Robotic pyeloplasty: the University of California-Irvine experience. J Urol. 2011;185:2196–200.
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.
Gerber GS, Kim JC. Ureteroscopic endopyelotomy in the treatment of patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 2000;55:198–202.
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.
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.
Gupta NP, Mukherjee S, Nayyar R, et al. Transmesocolic robot-assisted pyeloplasty: single center experience. J Endourol. 2009;23:945–8.
Hollis MV, Cho PS, Yu RN. Pediatric robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Am J Robot Surg. 2015;2(1):1–8.
Hopf HL, Bahler CD, Sundaram CP. Long-term outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 2016;90:106–10.
Inagaki T, Rha KH, Ong AM, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: current status. BJU Int. 2005;95(Suppl 2):102–5.
Jarrett TW, Chan DY, Charambura TC, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first 100 cases. J Urol. 2002;167:1253–6.
Kaouk JH, Goel RK, Haber GP, et al. Single-port laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2008;72:1190–3.
Kaouk JH, Goel RK, Haber GP, et al. Robotic single-port transumbilical surgery in humans: initial report. BJU Int. 2009;103:366–9.
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.
Kavoussi LR, Peters CA. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150:1891–4.
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.
Kutikov A, Nguyen M, Guzzo T, et al. Robot assisted pyeloplasty in the infant-lessons learned. J Urol. 2006;176:2237–40.
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.
Link RE, Bhayani SB, Kavoussi LR. A prospective comparison of robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Ann Surg. 2006;243:486–91.
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.
McClinton S, Steyn JH, Hussey JK. Retrograde balloon dilatation for pelviureteric junction obstruction. Br J Urol. 1993;71:152–5.
Meretyk I, Meretyk S, Clayman RV. Endopyelotomy: comparison of ureteroscopic retrograde and antegrade percutaneous techniques. J Urol. 1992;148:775–82.
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.
Motola JA, Badlani GH, Smith AD. Results of 221 consecutive endopyelotomies: an 8-year follow-up. J Urol. 1993;149:453–6.
Mufarrij PW, Woods M, Shah OD, et al. Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience. J Urol. 2008;180:1391–6.
Nakada SY, Johnson M. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Retrograde endopyelotomy. Urol Clin North Am. 2000;27:677–84.
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.
Notley RG, Beaugie JM. The long-term follow-up of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty for hydronephrosis. Br J Urol. 1973;45:464–7.
O’Reilly PH, Brooman PJ, Mak S, et al. The long-term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. BJU Int. 2001;87:287–9.
Olsen LH, Jorgensen TM. Computer assisted pyeloplasty in children: the retroperitoneal approach. J Urol. 2004;171:2629–31.
Olsen LH, Rawashdeh YF, Jorgensen TM. Pediatric robot assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty: a 5-year experience. J Urol. 2007;178:2137–41.
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.
Palese MA, Munver R, Phillips CK, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. JSLS. 2005;9(3):252–7.
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.
Persky L, Krause JR, Boltuch RL. Initial complications and late results in dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1977;118:162–5.
Rassweiler JJ, Teber D, Frede T. Complications of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. World J Urol. 2008;26:539–47.
Samarasekera D, Stein RJ. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic approaches to the ureter: pyeloplasty and ureteral reimplantation. Indian J Urol. 2014;30(3):293–9.
Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, et al. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150:1795–9.
Schwentner C, Pelzer A, Neururer R, et al. Robotic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty: 5-year experience of one centre. BJU Int. 2007;100:880–5.
Seideman CA, Sleeper JP, Lotan Y. Cost comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2012a;26:1044–8.
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.
Seo IY, Lee JW, Rim JS. Laparoendoscopic single-site radical nephrectomy: a comparison with conventional laparoscopy. J Endourol. 2011;25(3):465–9.
Seo IY, Oh TH, Lee JW. Long-term follow-up results of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Korean J Urol. 2014;55:656–9.
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.
Siqueira TM Jr, Nadu A, Kuo RL, et al. Laparoscopic treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 2002;60:973–8.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tripp BM, Homsy YL. Neonatal hydronephrosis—the controversy and the management. Pediatr Nephrol. 1995;9:503–9.
Weise ES, Winfield HN. Robotic computer-assisted pyeloplasty versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2006;20:813–9.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Seo, I.Y. (2019). Robotic Pyeloplasty. In: Chan, Ey., Matsuda, T. (eds) Endourology Progress. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3465-8_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3465-8_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-3464-1
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-3465-8
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)