Advertisement

Robot Assisted Pyeloplasty

  • Iqbal Singh
  • Ashok K. HemalEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Aim: To review the global select data on the current technique, peri-operative outcome and follow up literature and to describe the operative technique of robot assisted pyeloplasty (RAP).

Methods: The published English literature (PubMed™) was searched at length using the key words; robot, robot assisted pyeloplasty, laparoscopy, laparoscopic pyeloplasty and ureteropelvic junction obstruction. The selected studies were then reviewed, followed and scrutinized to determine the current role, outcome and status of robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty.

Results: The search yielded about 30 published series on RAP comprising about 1110 cases with a mean operative time, estimated blood loss, crossing vessel prevalence, hospital stay,peri-operative complication rate and follow up duration of 189 min, 47 ml, 47%, 2.3 days, 6% and 18 months respectively.

Conclusion: The initial peri-operative results and intermediate follow up of cases of repair of the ureteropelvic junction obstruction with robot assisted pyeloplasty appear to be favorable and comparable to that of open pyeloplasty, with emerging good long term outcome follow up data also available. The da-Vinci® surgical robotic system is a promising surgical armamentarium in the hands of the modern day urologist for the minimally invasive definitive surgical management of both primary and secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Keywords

Robot Robot assisted pyeloplasty Laparoscopy Laparoscopic pyeloplasty and ureteropelvic junction obstruction 

References

  1. 1.
    Poulakis V, Witzsch U, Schultheiss D, Rathert P, Becht E. History of ureteropelvic junction obstruction repair (pyeloplasty). From Trendelenburg (1886) to the present. Urologe A. 2004;43(12):1544–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson JC, Hynes W. Plastic operation for hydronephrosis. Proc R Soc Med. 1951;44(1):4–5.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wickham JE, Kellet MJ. Percutaneous pyelolysis. Eur Urol. 1983;9(2):122–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Badlani G, Eshghi M, Smith AD. Percutaneous surgery for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (endopyelotomy): technique and early results. J Urol. 1986;135(1):26–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Inglis JA, Tolley DA. Ureteroscopic pyelolysis for pelviureteric junction obstruction. Br J Urol. 1986;58(3):250–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McClinton S, Steyn JH, Hussey JK. Retrograde balloon dilatation for pelviureteric junction obstruction. Br J Urol. 1993;71(2):152–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chandhoke PS, Clayman RV, Stone AM, McDougall EM, Buelna T, Hilal N, Chang M, Stegwell MJ. Endopyelotomy and endoureterotomy with the acucise ureteral cutting balloon device: preliminary experience. J Endourol. 1993;7(1):45–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    O’Reilly PH, Brooman PJ, Mak S. The long-term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. BJU Int. 2001;87:287–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peters CA, Schlussel RN, Retik AB. Pediatric laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1995;153(6):1962–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sung GT, Gill IS, Hsu TH. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a pilot study. Urology. 1999;53(6):1099–103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sung GT, Gill IS. Robotic laparoscopic surgery: a comparison of the da Vinci and Zeus systems. Urology. 2001;58(6):893–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lorincz A, Knight CG, Kant AJ, Langenburg SE, Rabah R, Gidell K, Dawe E, Klein MD, McLorie G. Totally minimally invasive robot-assisted unstented pyeloplasty using the Zeus Microwrist surgical system: an animal study. J Pediatr Surg. 2005;40(2):418–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150:1795–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kavoussi LR, Peters CA. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150:1891–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Janetschek G, Peschel R, Reissigl A. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 1994;8:S83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jarrett TW, Chan DY, Charambura TC, Fugita O, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first 100 cases. J Urol. 2002;167:1253–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Inagaki T, Rha KH, Ono AM, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: current status. BJU Int. 2005;95:102–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Janetschek G, Peschel R, Frauscher F. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Urol Clin North Am. 2000;27:695–704.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang X, Li HZ, Ma X. Retrospective comparison of retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol. 2006;176:1077–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tan BJ, Rastinehad AR, Marcovich R, Smith AD, Lee BR. Trends in ureteropelvic junction obstruction management among urologists in the United States. J Urol. 2005;65:260–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hemal AK, Goel R, Goel A. Cost-effective laparoscopic pyeloplasty: single center experience. Int J Urol. 2003;10(11):563–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hemal AK, Menon M. Robotics in urology. Curr Opin Urol. 2004;14(2):89–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gettman MT, Peschel R, Neururer R, Bartsch G. A comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed with the da Vinci robotic system versus standard laparoscopic techniques:initial clinical results. Eur Urol. 2002;42:453–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R. Anderson Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da vinci robotic system. Urology. 2002;60(3):509–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Graham RW, Graham SD, Bokinsky GB, Monahan MB. Urological upper tract surgery with the daVinci robotic system, pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2001;165:V74.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Guillonneau B, Jayet C, Cappele O, Navarre S, Martinez J, Vallancien G. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2001;165:V75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gupta NP, Mukherjee S, Nayyar R, Hemal AK, Kumar R. Transmesocolic robot-assisted pyeloplasty: single center experience. J Endourol. 2009;23(6):945–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaouk JH, Hafron J, Parekattil S, Moinzadeh A, Stein R, Gill IS, Hegarty N. Is retroperitoneal approach feasible for robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: initial experience and long-term results. J Endourol. 2008;22(9):2153–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Meng MV, Stoller MI. Hellstrom technique revisited: laparoscopic management of UPJ obstruction. Urology. 2003;62(3):404–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Badani KK, Hemal AK, Fumo M, Kaul S, Shrivastava A, Rajendram AK, Yusoff NA, Sundram M, Susan Woo S, Peabody JO, Mohamed SR, Menon M. Robotic extended pyelolithotomy for treatment of renal calculi: a feasibility study. World J Urol. 2006;24:198–201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lee RS, Passerotti CC, Cendron M, Estrada CR, Borer JG, Peters CA. Early results of robot assisted laparoscopic lithotomy in adolescents. J Urol. 2007;177:2306–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Atug F, Castle EP, Burgess SV, Thomas R. Concomitant management of renal calculi and pelvi-ureteral junction obstruction with robotic laparoscopic surgery. BJU Int. 2005;96:1365–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gupta NP, Hemal AK, Singh I, Khaitan A. Retroperitoneal ureterolysis and reconstruction of retrocaval ureter. J Endourol. 2001;15(3):291–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hemal AK, Rao R, Sharma S, Clement RG. Pure robotic retrocaval ureter repair. Int Braz J Urol. 2008;34(6):734–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jindal L, Gupta AK, Mumtaz F, Sunder R, Hemal AK. Laparoscopic nephroplication and nephropexy as an adjunct to pyeloplasty in UPJO with giant hydronephrosis. Int Urol Nephrol. 2006;38(3–4):443–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Boylu U, Lee BR, Thomas R. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty and nephropexy for ureteropelvic junction obstruction and nephroptosis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2009;19(3):379–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yanke BV, Lallas CD, Pagnani C, McGinnis DE, Bagley DH. The minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a review of our experience during the last decade. J Urol. 2008;180:1397–402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Murphy D, Challacombe B, Olsburgh J, Calder F, Mamode M, Khan MS, Mushtaq I, Dasgupta P. Ablative and reconstructive robotic-assisted laparoscopic renal surgery. Int J Clin Pract. 2008;62:1703–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mufarrij PW, Woods M, Shah OD, Palese MA, Berger AD, Thomas R, Stifelman MD. Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience. J Urol. 2008;180:1391–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hemal AK, Mishra S, Mukharjee S, Suryavanshi M. Robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in patients of ureteropelvic junction obstruction with previously failed open surgical repair. Int J Urol. 2008;15(8):744–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schwentner C, Pelzer A, Neururer R, Springer B, Horninger W, Bartsch G, Pesch R. Robotic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty: 5-year experience of one centre. BJUI. 2007;100:880–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Olsen LH, Rawashdeh YF, Jorgensen TM. Pediatric robot assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty: a 5-year experience. J Urol. 2007;178(5):2137–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lee RS, Retik AB, Borer JG, Peters CA. Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol. 2006;175(2):683–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Weise ES, Winfield HN. Robotic computer-assisted pyeloplasty versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2006;20:813–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    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;4067(3):599–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Patel V. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology. 2005;66:45–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Palese MA, Stifelman MD, Munver R, Sosa RE, Philipps CK, Dinlenc C, Del Pizzo JJ. Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: a combined experience. J Endourol. 2005;19:382–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Palese MA, Munver R, Phillips CK, Dinlenc C, Stifelman M, Delpizzo JJ. Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. JSLS. 2005;9:252–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Atug F, Burgess SV, Castle EK, Thomas R. Role of robotics in the management of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Int J Clin Pract. 2006;60:9–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mendez-torres F, Woods M, Thomas R. Technical modifications for robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2005;19:393–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bernie JE, Ramakrishna V, Brown J, Gardner TA, Sundaram CP. Comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty with and without robotic assistance. JSLS. 2005;9:258–61.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Soulie M, Thoulouzan M, Seguin P, Mouly P, Vazzoler N, Pontonnier F, Plante P. Retroperitoneoscopic laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty with a minimal incision: comparison of two surgical approaches. Urology. 2001;57:443–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Chen RN, Moore RG, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty indications, technique, and long term outcome. Urol Clin North Am. 1998;25:323–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Singh I, Hemal AK. Robot-assisted pyeloplasty: review of the current literature, technique and outcome. Can J Urol. 2010;17(2):5099–108.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rohrmann D, Snyder HM III, Duckett JW Jr, Canning DA, Zderic SA. The operative management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol. 1997;158:1257–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Sundaram CP, Grubb RL, Rehman J, Yan Y, Chen C, Landman J, McDougall EM, Clayman RV. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol. 2003;169:2037–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Turk IA, Davis JW, Winklemann B. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty-the method of choice in the presence of an enlarged renal pelvis and crossing vessels. Eur Urol. 2002;42:268–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Chammas M Jr, Feuillu B, Coissard A, Hubert J. Laparoscopic robotic-assisted management of pelviureteric obstruction in patients with horseshoe kidneys:technique and 1-year follow-up. BJU Int. 2006;97:579–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Nayyar R, Gupta NP, Hemal AK. Robotic management of complicated ureteropelvic junction obstruction. World J Urol. 2010;28(5):599–602.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Leveillee RJ, Williams SK. Role of robotics for ureteral pelvic junction obstruction and ureteral pathology. Curr Opin Urol. 2009;19(1):81–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Peters CA. Robotic pyeloplasty-the new standard of care? J Urol. 2008;180(4):1223–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Braga LH, Pace K, Demaria J, Lorenzo AJ. Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: effect on operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and success rate. Eur Urol. 2009;56(5):848–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Novara G. Editorial comment on: systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: effect on operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and success rate. Eur Urol. 2009;56(5):857–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Fornara P, Greco F. Editorial comment on: systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: effect on operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and success rate. Eur Urol. 2009;56(5):858.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Gupta NP, Nayyar R, Hemal AK, Mukherjee S, Kumar R, Dogra PN. Outcome analysis of robotic pyeloplasty: a large single-centre experience. BJU Int. 2010;105(7):980–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Desai MM, Rao PP, Pascal-Haber G, Desai MR, Mishra S, Kaouk JH, Gill IS. Scarless single port transumbilical nephrectomy and pyeloplasty: first clinical report. BJU Int. 2008;101:83–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Desai MM, Stein R, Rao P, Canes D, Aron M, Rao PP, Haber GP, Fergany A, Kaouk J, Gill IS. Embryonic natural orifice transumbilical endoscopic surgery (E-NOTES) for advanced reconstruction: initial experience. Urology. 2009;73(1):182–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Canes D, Desai MM, Aron M, Haber GP, Goel RK, Stein RJ, Kaouk JH, Gill IS. Transumbilical single port surgery: evolution and current status. Eur Urol. 2008;54:1020–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Freilich DA, Nguyen HT, Borer J, Nelson C, Passerotti CC. Concurrent management of bilateral ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children using robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery. Int Br J Urol. 2008;34(2):198–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Hemal AK, Mukherjee S, Singh K. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus robotic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a series of 60 cases performed by a single surgeon. Can J Urol. 2010;17(1):5012–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Shah HN, Nayyar R, Rajamahanty S, Hemal AK. Prospective evaluation of unidirectional barbed suture for various indications in surgeon-controlled robotic reconstructive urologic surgery: Wake Forest University experience. Int Urol Nephrol. 2012;44(3):775–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Hopf HL, Bahler CD, Sundaram CP. Long-term outcomes of robot- assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.12.050. pii: S0090-4295(16)00024-8. [Epub ahead of print]
  75. 75.
    Ener K, Altınova S, Canda AE, Özcan MF, Asil E, Ürer E, Atmaca AF, Akbulut Z. Outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty procedures: a series of 18 patients. Turk J Urol. 2014;40(4):193–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Avery DI, Herbst KW, Lendvay TS, Noh PH, Dangle P, Gundeti MS, Steele MC, Corbett ST, Peters CA, Kim C. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: multi-institutional experience in infants. J Pediatr Urol. 2015;11(3):139.e1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Traumann M, Kluth LA, Schmid M, Meyer C, Schwaiger B, Rosenbaum C, Schriefer P, Fisch M, Dahlem R, Seiler D, Ahyai S, Haese A, Chun FK. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in adults: excellent long-term results of primary pyeloplasty. Urologe A. 2015;54(5):703–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Erdeljan P, Caumartin Y, Warren J, Nguan C, Nott L, Luke PP, Pautler SE. Robot-assisted pyeloplasty: follow-up of first Canadian experience with comparison of outcomes between experienced and trainee surgeons. J Endourol. 2010;24(9):1447–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Cestari A, Buffi NM, Lista G, Sangalli M, Scapaticci E, Fabbri F, Lazzeri M, Rigatti P, Guazzoni G. Retroperitoneal and transperitoneal robot-assisted pyeloplasty in adults: techniques and results. Eur Urol. 2010;58(5):711–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Schwentner C, Pelzer A, Neururer R, Springer B, Horninger W, Bartsch G. Robotic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty: 5-year experience of one centre. BJU Int. 2007;100(4):880–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Wiltz AL, Shikanov S, Eggener SE, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy in overweight and obese patients: oncological and validated-functional outcomes. Urology. 2009;73(2):316–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Boylu U, Oommen M, Lee BR, Thomas R. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction secondary to crossing vessels-to transpose or not? The robotic experience. J Urol. 2009;181(4):1751–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Zeltser IS, Liu JB, Bagley DH. The incidence of crossing vessels in patients with normal ureteropelvic junction examined with endoluminal ultrasound. J Urol. 2004;172(6):2304–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity College of Medical Sciences (University of Delhi) & GTBHNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Department of UrologyBaptist Medical Centre, Wake Forest University Medical School, Medical Centre BoulevardWinston SalemUSA
  3. 3.Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest Baptist Medical CenterWake Forest School of MedicineWinston-SalemUSA

Personalised recommendations