Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic Surgery in Pediatric Urology

  • Minimally Invasive Surgery (V Bird and M Desai, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Minimally invasive laparoscopic procedures for urological diseases in children have proven to be safe and effective, with outcomes comparable to open procedures. Technical advances, including improved instruments and high-definition cameras, have contributed to the expanded role of minimal invasive surgery (MIS) in children. The major drawback to laparoscopy has been the relatively steep learning curve due to the technical difficulties of suturing and the limitations of instrument dexterity and range of motion. Recently, robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) has gained popularity in both adult and pediatric urology. RAS has several advantages over conventional laparoscopic surgery, particularly in the improved exposure via magnified 3-dimensional view and simplification of suturing with the increased degree of freedom and movement of the robotic arm. This review discusses the role of RAS in pediatric urology and provides technical aspects of RAS in specific urologic procedures as well.

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 outstanding importance

  1. Tobias JD. Anaesthesia for minimally invasive surgery in children. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2002;16:115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Freud E. Minimally invasive surgery in childhood: current status. Isr Med Assoc J. 2000;2:377.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Georgeson KE, Owings E. Advances in minimally invasive surgery in children. Am J Surg. 2000;180:362.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yee DS, Shanberg AM, Duel BP, Rodriguez E, Eichel L, Rajpoot D. Initial comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. Urology. 2006;67:599–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Olsen H, Jorgensen, T. Robotic vs. standard retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty in children. Br J Urol. 2003; 91.

  6. Peters CA. Robotic assisted surgery in pediatric urology. Pediatr Endosurg Innov Technol. 2003;7:403–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. McCullough TC, Barret E, Cathelineau X, Rozet F, Galiano M, Vallancien G. Role of robotics for prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2009;19(1):65–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Camarillo DB, Krummel TM, Salisbury Jr JK. Robotic technology in surgery: past, present, and future. Am J Surg. 2004;188:2S–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Peters C. Laparoscopy in pediatric urology: adoption of innovative technology. BJU Int. 2003;92 Suppl 1:52–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pedraza R, Weiser A, Franco I. (2004) Laparoscopic appendicovesicostomy (Mitrofanoff procedure) in a child using the da Vinci robotic system. J Urol. 2004;171:1652–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gundeti MS, Eng MK, Reynolds WS, Zagaja GP. Pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic augmentation ileocystoplasty and Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy: complete intracorporeal–-initial case report. Urology. 2008;72:1144–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gettman MT, Peschel R, Neururer R, Bartsch G. A comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed with the daVinci robotic system versus standard laparoscopic techniques: initial clinical results. Eur Urol. 2002;42:453–7. discussion 457–8, 2002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee RS, Retik AB, Borer JG, et al. Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol. 2006;175:683. One of the largest case-control series comparing robotic and open pyeloplasty. The authors found that robotic pyeloplasty led to decreased hospital stay and narcotic use, with similar operative times as the open technique.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sakka SG, Huettemann E, Petrat G, et al. Transoesophageal echocardiographic assessment of haemodynamic changes during laparoscopic herniorrhaphy in small children. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84(3):330–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Westgarth-Taylor C, de Lijster L, van Bogerijen G, et al. A prospective assessment of renal oxygenation in children undergoing laparoscopy using near-infrared spectroscopy. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(10):3696–704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Korets R, Mues AC, Graversen JA, et al. Validating the use of the Mimic dV-Trainer for robotic surgery skill acquisition among urology residents. Urology. 2011;78(6):1326–30. This randomized study of urologic residents found that curriculum-based training with the Mimic dV-Trainer and da Vinci Surgical System console significantly improves robotic surgery aptitude.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Larobina M, Nottle P. Complete evidence regarding major visceral injuries during laparoscopic access. Surg Laparosc Endosc Technol. 2005;5(3):119–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Catarci M, Carlini M, Santoro E. Major and minor injuries during creation of pneumoperitoneum. A multicenter study of 12,919 cases. Surg Endosc. 2001;15:566–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Casale P. Laparoscopic and robotic approach to genitourinary anomalies in children. Urol Clin N Am. 2010;37(2):279–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. El-Ghoneimi. Paediatric laparoscopic surgery. Curr Opin Urol. 2003;13:329–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Basiri A, Simforoosh N, Heidari M, Moghaddam SM, Otookesh H. Laparoscopic v open donor nephrectomy for pediatric kidney recipients: preliminary report of a randomized controlled trial. J Endourol. 2007;21:1033–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Koyle MA, Woo HH, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic nephrectomy in the first year of life. J Pediatr Surg. 1993;28(5):693–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. El-Ghoneimi A, Valla JS, Steyaert H, Aigrain Y. Laparoscopic renal surgery via a retroperitoneal approach in children. J Urol. 1998;160:1138–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gargollo P. Hidden incision endoscopic surgery: description of technique, parental satisfaction and applications. J Urol. 2011;185(4):1425–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lee RS, Sethi AS, Passerotti CC, Retik AB, Borer JG, Nguyen HT, et al. Robot assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a viable and safe option in children. J Urol. 2009;181:823–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Casale P. Robotic pediatric urology. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2008;5(1):59–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tan H. Laparoscopic Anderson–Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty in children. J Urol. 1999;162:1045–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Mesrobian HG. Bypass pyeloplasty.: description of a procedure and initial results. J Pediatr Urol. 2009;5:34–6. The first paper to describe the “bypass pyeloplasty” – a simple technique ideal for high inserting ureters that does not disrupt the UPJ and can be easily performed robotically.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Casale P, Grady RW, Joyner BD, et al. Comparison of dismembered and nondismembered laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient. J Endourol. 2004;18:875–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Atug F, Woods M, Burgess SV, Castle EP, Thomas R. Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children. J Urol. 2005;174(4 Pt 1):1440–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Casale P, Mucksavage P, Resnick M, Kim SS. Robotic ureterocalicostomy in the pediatric population. J Urol. 2008;180:2643–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Yeung CK, Sihoe JD, Borzi PA. Endoscopic cross-trigonal ureteral reimplantation under carbon dioxide bladder insufflation: a novel technique. J Endourol. 2005;19:295–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hayn MH, Smaldone MC, Ost MC, Docimo SG. Minimally invasive treatment of vesicoureteral reflux. Urol Clin N Am. 2008;35:477–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lendvay T. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic management of vesicoureteral reflux. Adv Urol. 2008;2008:732942.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Marchini GS, Hong YK, Minnillo BJ, et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation in children: case matched comparative study with open surgical approach. J Urol. 2011;185:1870–5. A case-matched series comparing robotic ureteral reimplantation (both intravesical and extravesical) to open surgery. While overall success rates were similar between both techniques, robotic surgery had statistically significant benefits of shorter time for catheter drainage, fewer bladder spasms, and shorter hospital stay.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Peters CA, Woo R. Intravesical robotically assisted bilateral ureteral reimplantation. J Endourol. 2005;19(6):618–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kutikov A, Guzzo TJ, Canter DJ, Casale P. Initial experience with laparoscopic transvesical ureteral reimplantation at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. J Urol. 2006;176(5):2222–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kasturi S, Sehgal SS, Christman MS, Lambert SM, Casale P. Prospective long-term analysis of nerve-sparing extravesical robotic-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation. Urology. 2012;79(3):680–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Carmignani G, Gallucci M, Puppo P, De Stefani S, Simonato A, Maffezzini M. Video laparoscopic excision of a seminal vesicle cyst associated with ipsilateral renal agenesis. J Urol. 1995;153(2):437–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Christman MS, Casale P. Robot-assisted bladder diverticulectomy in the pediatric population. J Endourol. 2012;26(10):1296–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

ᅟ

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Jason P. Van Batavia and Dr. Pasquale Casale each declare no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Columbia University Medical Center, Division of Pediatric Urology, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital/NY Presbyterian, New York, USA

    Jason P. Van Batavia & Pasquale Casale

Authors
  1. Jason P. Van Batavia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pasquale Casale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pasquale Casale.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Minimally Invasive Surgery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Van Batavia, J.P., Casale, P. Robotic Surgery in Pediatric Urology. Curr Urol Rep 15, 402 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-014-0402-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-014-0402-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation