Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population: a review of technique, outcomes, complications, and special considerations in infants

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Surgery International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 19 June 2017

This article has been updated

Abstract

Ureteropelvic junction obstruction is a common condition encountered by the pediatric urologist, and treated with pyeloplasty when indicated. Recent technological advancements and a shift across all surgical fields to embrace minimally invasive surgery have led to increased utilization of minimally invasive pyeloplasty. Conventional laparoscopy is a reasonable choice, but its use is limited by the technical challenges of precise suturing in a confined space and the associated considerable learning curve. Robotic technology has simplified the minimally invasive approach to pyeloplasty, offering enhanced visualization and improved dexterity with a fairly short learning curve. As utilization of robotic pyeloplasty continues to increase, we sought to critically assess the literature on this approach. We begin with a review of the technical aspects of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty including tips for surgical proficiency and patient safety. Outcomes and complications from the contemporary literature are reviewed, as well as special considerations in the pediatric population including infant pyeloplasty, cost concerns, training, and postoperative diversion/drainage.

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

Fig. 1

(reproduced with permission from Chang et al. [13])

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

(reproduced with permission from Dangle et al. [14])

Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 19 June 2017

    An erratum to this article has been published.

References

  1. Brown T, Mandell J, Lebowitz RL (1987) Neonatal hydronephrosis in the era of sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 148:959–963. doi:10.2214/ajr.148.5.959

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Elder JS (1997) Antenatal hydronephrosis. Fetal and neonatal management. Pediatr Clin North Am 44:1299–1321

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Woodward M, Frank D (2002) Postnatal management of antenatal hydronephrosis: POSTNATAL MANAGEMENT OF ANTENATAL HYDRONEPHROSIS. BJU Int 89:149–156. doi:10.1046/j.1464-4096.2001.woodward.2578.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chertin B, Pollack A, Koulikov D et al (2006) Conservative treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children with antenatal diagnosis of hydronephrosis: lessons learned after 16 years of follow-up. Eur Urol 49:734–739. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2006.01.046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ahmed S, Crankson S, Sripathi V (1998) Pelviureteric obstruction in children: conventional pyeloplasty is superior to endo-urology. ANZ J Surg 68:641–642. doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.1998.tb04834.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Peters CA, Schlussel RN, Retik AB (1995) Pediatric laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 153:1962–1965. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)67378-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sweeney DD, Ost MC, Schneck FX, Docimo SG (2011) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 21:261–265. doi:10.1089/lap.2010.0155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Moore LJ, Wilson MR, Waine E et al (2015) Robotic technology results in faster and more robust surgical skill acquisition than traditional laparoscopy. J Robot Surg 9:67–73. doi:10.1007/s11701-014-0493-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sukumar S, Roghmann F, Sood A et al (2014) Correction of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: national trends and comparative effectiveness in operative outcomes. J Endourol 28:592–598. doi:10.1089/end.2013.0618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Monn MF, Bahler CD, Schneider EB et al (2013) Trends in robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric patients. Urology 81:1336–1341. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2013.01.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee RS, Retik AB, Borer JG, Peters CA (2006) Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol 175:683–687. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00183-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Atug F, Woods M, Burgess SV et al (2005) Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children. J Urol 174:1440–1442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chang C, Steinberg Z, Shah A, Gundeti MS (2014) Patient positioning and port placement for robot-assisted surgery. J Endourol 28:631–638. doi:10.1089/end.2013.0733

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Dangle PP, Kearns J, Anderson B, Gundeti MS (2013) Outcomes of infants undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty compared to open repair. J Urol 190:2221–2227. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.07.063

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee LC, Kanaroglou N, Gleason JM et al (2015) Impact of drainage technique on pediatric pyeloplasty: Comparative analysis of externalized uretero-pyelostomy versus double-J internal stents. Can Urol Assoc J 9:453. doi:10.5489/cuaj.2697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Silva MV, Levy AC, Finkelstein JB et al (2015) Is peri-operative urethral catheter drainage enough? The case for stentless pediatric robotic pyeloplasty. J Pediatr Urol 11(175):e1–e5. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2015.06.003

    Google Scholar 

  17. Minnillo BJ, Cruz JAS, Sayao RH et al (2011) Long-term experience and outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children and young adults. J Urol 185:1455–1460. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.11.056

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cundy TP, Harling L, Hughes-Hallett A et al (2014) Meta-analysis of robot-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children: robot-assisted vs laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children. BJU Int 114:582–594. doi:10.1111/bju.12683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dangle PP, Akhavan A, Odeleye M et al (2016) Ninety-day perioperative complications of pediatric robotic urological surgery: a multi-institutional study. J Pediatr Urol 12(102):e1–e102.e6. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2015.08.015

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sorensen MD, Delostrinos C, Johnson MH et al (2011) Comparison of the learning curve and outcomes of robotic assisted pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol 185:2517–2522. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.01.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Barbosa JA, Kowal A, Onal B et al (2013) Comparative evaluation of the resolution of hydronephrosis in children who underwent open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Pediatr Urol 9:199–205. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2012.02.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Murthy P, Cohn J, Gundeti M (2015) Evaluation of robotic-assisted laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children: single-surgeon experience. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 97:109–114. doi:10.1308/003588414X14055925058797

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Yee DS, Shanberg AM, Duel BP et al (2006) Initial comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. Urology 67:599–602. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2005.09.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Olsen LH, Rawashdeh YF, Jorgensen TM (2007) pediatric robot assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty: a 5-year experience. J Urol 178:2137–2141. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.07.057

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Franco I, Dyer LL, Zelkovic P (2007) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient: hand sewn anastomosis versus robotic assisted anastomosis—is there a difference? J Urol 178:1483–1486. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.06.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Subotic U, Rohard I, Weber DM et al (2012) A minimal invasive surgical approach for children of all ages with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Pediatr Urol 8:354–358. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2011.07.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Riachy E, Cost NG, Defoor WR et al (2013) Pediatric standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a comparative single institution study. J Urol 189:283–287. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Autorino R, Eden C, El-Ghoneimi A et al (2014) Robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 65:430–452. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.06.053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Silay MS, Spinoit AF, Undre S et al (2016) 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 12(229):e1–e229.e7. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.04.007

    Google Scholar 

  30. Salö M, Sjöberg Altemani T, Anderberg M (2016) Pyeloplasty in children: perioperative results and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery. Pediatr Surg Int 32:599–607. doi:10.1007/s00383-016-3869-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Freilich DA, Penna FJ, Nelson CP et al (2010) parental satisfaction after open versus robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: results from modified glasgow children’s benefit inventory survey. J Urol 183:704–708. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.040

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Behan JW, Kim SS, Dorey F et al (2011) Human capital gains associated with robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children compared to open pyeloplasty. J Urol 186:1663–1667. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.04.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Barbosa JABA, Barayan G, Gridley CM et al (2013) Parent and patient perceptions of robotic vs open urological surgery scars in children. J Urol 190:244–250. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.12.060

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Garcia-Roig ML, Travers C, McCracken C et al (2016) Surgical scar location preference for pediatric kidney and pelvic surgery: a crowdsourced survey. J Urol. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.11.033

    Google Scholar 

  35. Casella DP, Fox JA, Schneck FX et al (2013) Cost analysis of pediatric robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol 189:1083–1086. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kutikov A, Nguyen M, Guzzo T et al (2006) Robot assisted pyeloplasty in the infant—lessons learned. J Urol 176:2237–2240. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.07.059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bansal D, Cost NG, DeFoor WR et al (2014) Infant robotic pyeloplasty: comparison with an open cohort. J Pediatr Urol 10:380–385. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2013.10.016

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Avery DI, Herbst KW, Lendvay TS et al (2015) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: multi-institutional experience in infants. J Pediatr Urol 11(139):e1–e139.e5. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.11.025

    Google Scholar 

  39. Braga LHP, Lorenzo AJ, Skeldon S et al (2007) Failed pyeloplasty in children: comparative analysis of retrograde endopyelotomy versus redo pyeloplasty. J Urol 178:2571–2575. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.050

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lindgren BW, Hagerty J, Meyer T, Cheng EY (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic reoperative repair for failed pyeloplasty in children: a safe and highly effective treatment option. J Urol 188:932–937. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.04.118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Asensio M, Gander R, Royo GF, Lloret J (2015) Failed pyeloplasty in children: is robot-assisted laparoscopic reoperative repair feasible? J Pediatr Urol 11(69):e1–e69.e6. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.10.009

    Google Scholar 

  42. Davis TD, Burns AS, Corbett ST, Peters CA (2016) Reoperative robotic pyeloplasty in children. J Pediatr Urol 12(394):e1–e394.e7. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.04.045

    Google Scholar 

  43. Casale P, Mucksavage P, Resnick M, Kim SS (2008) Robotic ureterocalicostomy in the pediatric population. J Urol 180:2643–2648. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.08.052

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Gundeti MS, Hatcher D (2015) Pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy: tips and tricks

  45. Ahn JJ, Shapiro ME, Ellison JS, Lendvay TS (2016) Pediatric robot-assisted redo pyeloplasty with buccal mucosa graft: a novel technique. Urology. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2016.12.036

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Mesrobian H-GO (2009) Bypass pyeloplasty: description of a procedure and initial results. J Pediatr Urol 5:34–36. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2008.07.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Chu DI, Van Batavia JP, Srinivasan AK, Shukla AR (2016) Salvage minimally-invasive pyeloplasty techniques in patients with short ureter

  48. Rowe CK, Pierce MW, Tecci KC et al (2012) A comparative direct cost analysis of pediatric urologic robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery: could robot-assisted surgery be less expensive? J Endourol 26:871–877. doi:10.1089/end.2011.0584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Liu DB, Ellimoottil C, Flum AS et al (2014) Contemporary national comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pediatric pyeloplasty. J Pediatr Urol 10:610–615. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.06.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Bennett WE, Whittam BM, Szymanski KM et al (2016) Validated cost comparison of open vs. robotic pyeloplasty in American children’s hospitals. J Robot Surg. doi:10.1007/s11701-016-0645-1

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Lendvay TS, Hannaford B, Satava RM (2013) Future of robotic surgery. Cancer J Sudbury Mass 19:109–119. doi:10.1097/PPO.0b013e31828bf822

  52. Bowen DK, Lindgren BW, Cheng EY, Gong EM (2016) Can proctoring affect the learning curve of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty? Experience at a high-volume pediatric robotic surgery center. J Robot Surg. doi:10.1007/s11701-016-0613-9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pediatric Urology, Comer Children’s Hospital, The University of Chicago Medicine and Biological Sciences, 5841 S. Maryland, P-217, MC 7122, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA

    William R. Boysen & Mohan S. Gundeti

Authors
  1. William R. Boysen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohan S. Gundeti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohan S. Gundeti.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Boysen, none; Gundeti, Intuitive Surgical (consultant and course director).

Additional information

The original version of this article was revised: Figure 5 has been incorrectly published. The corrected figure is updated in the article.

An erratum to this article is available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-017-4096-1.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boysen, W.R., Gundeti, M.S. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population: a review of technique, outcomes, complications, and special considerations in infants. Pediatr Surg Int 33, 925–935 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-017-4082-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-017-4082-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation