Robotic Urologic Surgery in the Infant: a Review
- 34 Downloads
Purpose of Review
The goal of this article is to review the current role of robotic urologic surgery in the infant population across a spectrum of diseases and procedures.
Robotic urological surgery has been performed in the infant population across a variety of conditions including ureteropelvic junction obstruction, vesicoureteral reflux, and duplicated and nonfunctional renal moieties. However, most of the durable evidence showing safety and success remains in the repair of the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Included in this review are also strategies to address the limitations imposed by the unique physiology and anatomy of the infant.
Robotic urologic surgery remains an alternative to other surgical approaches in the properly selected infant in the hands of experienced surgeons. As additional larger studies are performed, the utility of the robotic platform in this population will be clearer.
KeywordsPediatric urology Robotic urologic surgery Obstructed ureteropelvic junction
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Jeffrey Villanueva, Mary Killian, and Rajeev Chaudhry each declare no potential conflicts of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance
- 3.Sureka SK, Patidar N, Mittal V, Kapoor R, Srivastava A, Kishore K, et al. Safe and optimal pneumoperitoneal pressure for transperitoneal laparoscopic renal surgery in infant less than 10 kg, looked beyond intraoperative period: A prospective randomized study. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12(5):281.e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.• Baek M, Silay MS, Au JK, et al. Does the use of 5 mm instruments affect the outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in smaller working spaces? A comparative analysis of infants and older children. J Pediatr Urol. 2018;14(6):537.e1–6 This paper encourages others to try the 5 mm instruments for infant pyeloplasty. It helps to justify exploring different instruments which are traditionally seen as limited with poor utility.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.• Finkelstein JB, Levy AC, Silva MV, Murray L, Delaney C, Casale P. How to decide which infant can have robotic surgery? Just do the math. J Pediatr Urol. 2015;11:170.e1–4 This article can help robotic surgeons select which patients may be more challenging robotically. It may make patient selection more precise preoperatively.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.• Avery DI, Herbst KW, Lendvay TS, Noh PH, Dangle P, Gundeti MS, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: multi-institutional experience in infants. J Pediatr Urol. 2015;11(3):139.e1–5 This study is one of the largest robotic series which includes the infant population. It shows feasibility in this population with comparable success rates to other approaches.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Chaudhry R, Stephany HA. Robotic ureteral reimplant-the current role. CurrUrol Rep. 2017;18(4):30.Google Scholar