Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic-Assisted Pyeloplasty:Recent Developments in Efficacy, Outcomes, and New Techniques

  • New Imaging Techniques (A Atala, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Within the last decade, the adaptation of robotic urologic surgery has had a profound impact on surgical practice, with robotic upper tract reconstruction for ureteropelvic junction obstruction gaining rapid acceptance. Recent advances in robotic reconstruction demonstrate efficacious outcomes of robotic pyeloplasty, as compared with conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty, even in the case of secondary surgery. Furthermore, efforts to continue to reduce the morbidity of laparoscopic surgery have led to the development and implementation of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery. The recent applications of the da Vinci robotic surgical platform to LESS pyeloplasty (R-LESS) has demonstrated the potential to further decrease morbidity, improve surgeon ergonomics, and improve cosmesis.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Gettman MT, et al. Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology. 2002;60(3):509–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. •• Braga LH, 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(5):848–57. The Braga et al. metanalysis represents the most comprehensive paper that looks at robotic pyeloplasty compared to conventional laparoscopy. It demonstrates equivalence of the two techniques, and serves as a strong foundation for the adaptation of the robotic technique.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. El-Shazly MA, Moon DA, Eden CG. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: status and review of literature. J Endourol. 2007;21(7):673–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Singh I, Hemal AK. Robot-assisted pyeloplasty: review of the current literature, technique and outcome. Can J Urol. 2010;17(2):5099–108.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schuessler WW, et al. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150(6):1795–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Passerotti CC, 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(4):576–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mei H, et al. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol. 2011;25(5):727–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Vemulakonda VM, et al. Surgical management of congenital ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a Pediatric Health Information System database study. J Urol. 2008;180(4 Suppl):1689–92. discussion 1692.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nelson CP, et al. Contemporary trends in surgical correction of pediatric ureteropelvic junction obstruction: data from the nationwide inpatient sample. J Urol. 2005;173(1):232–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nelson CP, et al. Contemporary trends in surgical correction of pediatric ureteropelvic junction obstruction: data from the nationwide inpatient sample. J Urol. 2005;173(1):232–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. • Sukumar S, et al. National trends and disparities in the use of minimally invasive adult pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2012;188(3)):913–8. Sukumar et al. demonstrates the national practice patterns, and highlights that robotic pyeloplasties are now performed more commonly than conventional laparoscopy, despite being underutilized compared to open surgery.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sivaraman A, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a multi-institutional experience. Urology. 2012;79((2):351–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Niver BE, et al. Analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyleloplasty for primary versus secondary repair in 119 consecutive cases. Urology. 2012;79(3)):689–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Thom MR, et al. Robot-assisted pyeloplasty: outcomes for primary and secondary repairs, a single institution experience. Int Braz J Urol. 2012;38(1):77–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Desai MM, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: initial hundred patients. Urology. 2009;74(4):805–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. White WM, et al. Single-port urological surgery: single-center experience with the first 100 cases. Urology. 2009;74(4):801–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tracy CR, et al. Perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing conventional laparoscopic versus laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty. Urology. 2009;74((5):1029–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Olweny, E.O., et al., Importance of cosmesis to patients undergoing renal surgery: a comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS), laparoscopic and open surgery. BJU Int, 2011

  19. Best SL, et al. Complications during the initial experience with aparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty. BJU Int. 2011;108(8):1326–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Desai MM, et al. Scarless single port transumbilical nephrectomy and pyeloplasty: first clinical report. BJU Int. 2008;101(1):83–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Best, S.L., et al., Complications during the initial experience with laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty. BJU Int, 2011

  22. Joseph RA, et al. "Chopstick" surgery: a novel technique improves surgeon performance and eliminates arm collision in robotic single-incision laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(6):1331–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. • Seideman CA, et al. Robot-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty: technique using the da vinci si robotic platform. J Endourol. 2012;26(8):971–4. Seideman et al. outlines the technique for robotic laparoendoscopic pyeloplasty, to aid in the adoption of this subspecialized procedure.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cestari A, et al. Feasibility and preliminary clinical outcomes of robotic laparoendoscopic single-site (R-LESS) pyeloplasty using a new single-port platform. Eur Urol. 2012;62(1):175–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lotan Y. Economics of robotics in urology. Curr Opin Urol. 2010;20(1):92–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Seideman CA, Sleeper JP, Lotan Y. Cost comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2012;26(8):1044–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Descazeaud A, Peyromaure M, Zerbib M. Will robotic surgery become the gold standard for radical prostatectomy? Eur Urol. 2007;51(1):9–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Morino M, et al. Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Br J Surg. 2006;93(5):553–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Smith A, et al. Cost analysis of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. J Urol. 2010;183(2):505–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

C. A. Seideman, A. Bagrodia, and J. Gahan reported no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article; J. A. Cadeddu reported a patent (planned, pending, or issued) to his institution from Ethicon Endosurgery.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Moss Bldg, 8thFl, J8-106, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390-9110, USA

    Casey A. Seideman, Aditya Bagrodia, Jeffrey Gahan & Jeffrey A. Cadeddu

Authors
  1. Casey A. Seideman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aditya Bagrodia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeffrey Gahan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jeffrey A. Cadeddu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey A. Cadeddu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Seideman, C.A., Bagrodia, A., Gahan, J. et al. Robotic-Assisted Pyeloplasty:Recent Developments in Efficacy, Outcomes, and New Techniques. Curr Urol Rep 14, 37–40 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-012-0291-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-012-0291-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation