Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty - PubMed (original) (raw)
Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty
Vipul Patel. Urology. 2005 Jul.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty has been shown to have a success rate comparable to that of the open surgical approach. However, the steep learning curve has hindered its acceptance into mainstream urologic practice. The introduction of robotic assistance provides advantages that have the potential to facilitate precise dissection and intracorporeal suturing.
Methods: A total of 50 patients underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. A four-trocar technique was used. Most patients were discharged home on day 1, with stent removal at 3 weeks. Patency of the ureteropelvic junction was assessed in all patients with mercaptotriglycylglycine Lasix renograms at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, then every 6 months for 1 year, and then yearly.
Results: Each patient underwent a successful procedure without open conversion or transfusion. The average estimated blood loss was 40 mL. The operative time averaged 122 minutes (range 60 to 330) overall. Crossing vessels were present in 30% of the patients and were preserved in all cases. The time for the anastomosis averaged 20 minutes (range 10 to 100). Intraoperatively, no complications occurred. Postoperatively, the average hospital stay was 1.1 days. The stents were removed at an average of 20 days (range 14 to 28) postoperatively. The average follow-up was 11.7 months; at the last follow-up visit, each patient was doing well. Of the 50 patients, 48 underwent one or more renograms, demonstrating stable renal function, improved drainage, and no evidence of recurrent obstruction.
Conclusions: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty is a feasible technique for ureteropelvic junction reconstruction. The procedure provides a minimally invasive alternative with good short-term results.
Similar articles
- Combination of laparoscopic and open procedure in dismembered pyeloplasty: report of 51 cases.
Gao ZL, Shi L, Yang MS, Wang L, Yang DD, Sun DK, Liu QZ, Men CP, Wu JT, Zhang P. Gao ZL, et al. Chin Med J (Engl). 2006 May 20;119(10):840-4. Chin Med J (Engl). 2006. PMID: 16732987 - Minimally invasive surgical management of pelvic-ureteric junction obstruction: update on the current status of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty.
Uberoi J, Disick GI, Munver R. Uberoi J, et al. BJU Int. 2009 Dec;104(11):1722-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08682.x. Epub 2009 Jun 10. BJU Int. 2009. PMID: 19519760 Review. - Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
Sundaram CP, Grubb RL 3rd, Rehman J, Yan Y, Chen C, Landman J, McDougall EM, Clayman RV. Sundaram CP, et al. J Urol. 2003 Jun;169(6):2037-40. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000067180.78134.da. J Urol. 2003. PMID: 12771713 - Initial comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children.
Yee DS, Shanberg AM, Duel BP, Rodriguez E, Eichel L, Rajpoot D. Yee DS, et al. Urology. 2006 Mar;67(3):599-602. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.09.021. Epub 2006 Feb 28. Urology. 2006. PMID: 16504272 - Robot-assisted pyeloplasty: review of the current literature, technique and outcome.
Singh I, Hemal AK. Singh I, et al. Can J Urol. 2010 Apr;17(2):5099-108. Can J Urol. 2010. PMID: 20398449 Review.
Cited by
- Comparison of robot-assisted nephrectomy with laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy.
Boger M, Lucas SM, Popp SC, Gardner TA, Sundaram CP. Boger M, et al. JSLS. 2010 Jul-Sep;14(3):374-80. doi: 10.4293/108680810X12924466007124. JSLS. 2010. PMID: 21333191 Free PMC article. - Complex pelvic-ureteric junction obstruction (PUJO): successful management with robotic assistance.
Narain TA, Mavuduru RS, Sharma AP, Bora GS, Devana SK, Singh SK, Mandal AK. Narain TA, et al. J Robot Surg. 2019 Feb;13(1):121-127. doi: 10.1007/s11701-018-0829-y. Epub 2018 Jun 6. J Robot Surg. 2019. PMID: 29876692 - Applications of robots in urology.
Thaly R, Shah K, Patel VR. Thaly R, et al. J Robot Surg. 2007;1(1):3-17. doi: 10.1007/s11701-006-0003-9. Epub 2007 Feb 2. J Robot Surg. 2007. PMID: 25484933 Free PMC article. Review. No abstract available. - Comparison of surgical approaches to ureteropelvic junction obstruction: endopyeloplasty versus endopyelotomy versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
Stein RJ, Gill IS, Desai MM. Stein RJ, et al. Curr Urol Rep. 2007 Mar;8(2):140-9. doi: 10.1007/s11934-007-0064-y. Curr Urol Rep. 2007. PMID: 17303020 Review. - Robotic versus Open Pyeloplasty: Perioperative and Functional Outcomes.
Moretto S, Gandi C, Bientinesi R, Totaro A, Marino F, Gavi F, Russo A, Aceto P, Pierconti F, Bassi P, Sacco E. Moretto S, et al. J Clin Med. 2023 Mar 28;12(7):2538. doi: 10.3390/jcm12072538. J Clin Med. 2023. PMID: 37048622 Free PMC article.