Robotic Urologic Surgery in the Infant: a Review

  • Jeffrey Villanueva
  • Mary Killian
  • Rajeev ChaudhryEmail author
Pediatric Urology (D Weiss, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Pediatric Urology


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.

Recent Findings

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.


Pediatric 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

  1. 1.
    Terrier G. Anaesthesia for laparoscopic procedures in infants and children: indications, intra- and post-operative management, prevention and treatment of complications. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 1999;12:311–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bozkurt P, Kaya G, Yeker Y, Tunali Y, Altintaş F. The cardiorespiratory effects of laparoscopic procedures in infants. Anaesthesia. 1999;54(9):831–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 4.
    Olsen M, Avery N, Khurana S, Laing R. Pneumoperitoneum for neonatal laparoscopy: How safe is it? Paediatr Anaesth. 2013;23(5):457–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tomaszewski JJ, Casella DP, Turner RM 2nd, Casale P, Ost MC. Pediatric laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: technical considerations. J Endourol. 2012;26:602–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blinman T, Ponsky T. Pediatric minimally invasive surgery: laparoscopy and thoracoscopy in infants and children. Pediatrics. 2012;130(3):539–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaynan AM, Winfield HN. Thermostasis during laparoscopic urologic surgery. J Endourol. 2002;16(7):465–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bharadwaj A, Khandelwal M, Bhargava SK. Perioperative neonatal and paediatric blood transfusion. Indian J Anaesth. 2014;58(5):652–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Howe A, Kozel Z, Palmer L. Robotic surgery in pediatric urology. Asian J Urol. 2016;4(1):55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Roberts KB. Revised AAP Guideline on UTI in febrile infants and young children. Am Fam Physician. 2012;86(10):940–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Akhavan A, Merguerian PA, Larison C, Goldin AB, Shnorhavorian M. Trends in the rates of pediatric pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction over 19 years: a PHIS database study. Adv Urol. 2014;2014:142625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dangle PP, Kearns J, Anderson B, Gundeti MS. Outcomes of infants undergoingrobot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty compared to open repair. J Urol. 2013;190(6):2221–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 14.
    Tröbs R-B, Reza VM, Grigore C. Transumbilical cord access (TUCA) for laparoscopy in infants and children: simple, safe and fast. Surg Today. 2016;46:235–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yanke BV, Horowitz M. Safety of the Veress needle in pediatric laparoscopy. J Endourol. 2007;21(7):695–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peters CA. Complications in pediatric urological laparoscopy: results of a survey. J Urol. 1996;155(3):1070–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gupta R, Singh S. Challenges in paediatric laparoscopic surgeries. Indian J Anaesth. 2009;53(5):560–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chang C, Steinberg Z, Shah A, Gundeti MS. Patient positioning and port placement for robot-assisted surgery. J Endourol. 2014;28(6):631–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kawal T, Srinivasan AK, Shrivastava D, Chu DI, Van Batavia J, Weiss D, et al. Pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Does age matter? J Pediatr Urol. 2018;14(6):540.e1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 21.
    Cost NG, Lee J, Snodgrass WT, Harrison CB, Wilcox DT, Baker LA. Hernia after pediatric urological laparoscopy. J Urol. 2010;183(3):1163–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tapscott A, Kim SS, White S, Graves R, Kraft K, Casale P. Port-site complications after pediatric urologic robotic surgery. J Robot Surg. 2009;3(3):187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 24.
    Kutikov A, Nguyen M, Guzzo T, Canter D, Casale P. Robot assisted pyeloplasty in the infant-lessons learned. J Urol. 2006;176(5):2237–9 discussion 2239–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kassite I, Braik K, Villemagne T, Lardy H, Binet A. The learning curve ofrobot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: a multi-outcome approach. J Pediatr Urol. 2018;14(6):570.e1–570.e10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wiestma AC, Cho PS, Hollis MV, Badway J, Yu RN. Robot-assisted laparoscopic lower pole partial nephrectomy in the pediatric patient. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12(6):428–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee RS, Sethi AS, Passerotti CC, Peters CA. Robot-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy and contralateral ureteral reimplantation in children. J Endourol. 2010;24(1):123–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bansal D, Cost NG, Bean CM, Vanderbrink BA, Schulte M, Noh PH. Infant robot-assisted laparoscopic upper urinary tract reconstructive surgery. J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10(5):869–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Biles MJ, Finkelstein JB, Silva MV, Lambert SM, Casale P. Innovation in robotics and pediatric urology: robotic ureteroureterostomy for duplex systems with ureteral ectopia. J Endourol. 2016;30(10):1041–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee NG, Corbett ST, Cobb K, Bailey GC, Burns AS, Peters CA. Bi-institutional comparison of robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open ureteroureterostomy in the pediatric population. J Endourol. 2015;29(11):1237–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chaudhry R, Stephany HA. Robotic ureteral reimplant-the current role. CurrUrol Rep. 2017;18(4):30.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Garcia-Roig M, Travers C, McCracken CE, Kirsch AJ. National trends in the management of primary vesicoureteral reflux in children. J Urol. 2018;199(1):287–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Grimsby GM, Dwyer ME, Jacobs MA, Ost MC, Schneck FX, Cannon GM, et al. Multi-institutional review of outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation. J Urol. 2015;193(5 Suppl):1791–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey Villanueva
    • 1
  • Mary Killian
    • 1
  • Rajeev Chaudhry
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of Pediatric UrologyUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical CenterPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations