Outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty procedures: a series of 18 patients.

OBJECTIVE We evaluated outcomes of our robot-assisted laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty (RALP) procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS Between July 2011 and March 2014, 18 RALP procedures were performed at our instutition. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) diagnosis was made based on clinical presentation and intravenous urography. All patients underwent basal and diuretic isotopic renography to evaluate the degree of obstruction and impaired renal function. Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty technique was used with a transperitoneal approach by using the da Vinci-S 4-arm surgical robot. Outcomes were assessed retrospectively. RESULTS Mean patient age was 31.3±11.7 (13-62) years. Male: female ratio was 9: 9. All procedures were primary surgeries. Of 18 patients, 10 (55.5%) had a crossing vessel and 8 (44.5%) had intrinsic obstruction. Mean operative time was 150.4±17.2 (115-185) minutes. Mean anastomosis time was 21.4±5.5 (10-33) minutes. Mean blood loss during the operation was 33.6±17.3 (10-60) cc. Mean hospital stay was 2.6±1.0 (1-6) days. No conversion to open surgery was required. No intraoperative and perioperative (0-30 days) complication occurred. Readmission rate during perioperative period was 0%. Median follow-up was 16.6±10.3 (3-35) months. Postoperative intravenous urography and renography showed improved results in all cases. CONCLUSION Due to our experience, RALP is a safe and feasible minimally invasive approach in patients with UPJO with excellent surgical and functional outcomes.

[1]  Cem Başataç,et al.  Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. , 2014, Turkish journal of urology.

[2]  A. Canda,et al.  Robotic Pyeloplasty: Step by Step Surgical Technique , 2013, ICRA 2013.

[3]  U. Boylu,et al.  Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of minimally invasive and open pyeloplasty. , 2012, Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A.

[4]  J. Kaouk,et al.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: step-by-step contemporary technique and surgical outcomes at a single high-volume institution. , 2012, European urology.

[5]  S. Lipsitz,et al.  Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[6]  A. Seth,et al.  Outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: a single center experience. , 2012, Journal of endourology.

[7]  Benjamin R. Lee,et al.  Factors that impact the outcome of minimally invasive pyeloplasty: results of the Multi-institutional Laparoscopic and Robotic Pyeloplasty Collaborative Group. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[8]  Charles R. Moore,et al.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a multi-institutional experience. , 2012, Urology.

[9]  M. Stifelman,et al.  Analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyleloplasty for primary versus secondary repair in 119 consecutive cases. , 2011, Urology.

[10]  S. Nakada,et al.  Management of Upper Urinary Tract Obstruction , 2012 .

[11]  S. Bhayani,et al.  Robot-assisted pyeloplasty: outcomes for primary and secondary repairs, a single institution experience. , 2012, International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology.

[12]  A. Retik,et al.  Long-term experience and outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children and young adults. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[13]  R. Leveillee,et al.  Comparison of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a single-center study. , 2011, Urology.

[14]  A. Hemal,et al.  Outcome analysis of robotic pyeloplasty: a large single‐centre experience , 2010, BJU international.

[15]  M. Desai,et al.  Minimally invasive approaches to ureteropelvic junction obstruction. , 2008, The Urologic clinics of North America.

[16]  C. Eden Minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a critical analysis of results. , 2007, European urology.

[17]  E. Castle,et al.  Role of robotics in the management of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction , 2005, International journal of clinical practice.

[18]  M. Stifelman,et al.  Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Dismembered Pyeloplasty , 2005, JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons.

[19]  Louis R Kavoussi,et al.  Complete daVinci versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty: cost analysis. , 2005, Journal of endourology.

[20]  Y. Homsy,et al.  Neonatal hydronephrosis—the controversy and the management , 1995, Pediatric Nephrology.

[21]  Hideaki Miyake,et al.  Comparison of surgical stress between laparoscopy and open surgery in the field of urology by measurement of humoral mediators , 2002, International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association.

[22]  H. Pohl,et al.  Early diuresis renogram findings predict success following pyeloplasty. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[23]  G. Sung,et al.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a pilot study. , 1999, Urology.

[24]  P. Alken,et al.  Nephrectomy: A Comparative Study between the Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic versus the Open Approach , 1998, European Urology.

[25]  G. Preminger,et al.  Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. , 1993, The Journal of urology.