Robot-Assisted Pyeloplasty

  • Giuliana Lista
  • Nicolò Maria BuffiEmail author
  • Davide Maffei
  • Giovanni Lughezzani


Although many surgical and endoscopic techniques have been described for treating ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO), Anderson Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty remains the preferred option in most cases. This kind of technique is well suitable also for laparoscopic minimally invasive approach.

Since its introduction in 1993 by Schuessler et al. (J Urol 150:1795, 1993), laparosopic dismembered pyeloplasy has rapidly become a valid alternative to the more invasive traditional open approach. The long-term results are comparable with those of open surgery with success rates ranging from 90 to >95% (Brooks et al., Urology 46:791–795, 1995; Bauer et al., J Urol 162:692–695, 1999; Klingler et al., Eur Urol 44:340–345, 2003; Cestari et al., Eur Urol 58:711–718, 2010).

However, laparoscopic pyeloplasty, both transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach, remains a challenging procedure and it requires high proficiency in laparoscopic skills especially considering the reconstructive part such as suturing.

Even in large series from experienced centers, the operative duration has remained long, usually due to prolonged anastomotic times.

Robotic technology overcomes limits of conventional laparoscopy with the three dimensional vision, increased dexterity and greater precision. Therefore, taking into account that reconstructive surgery needs precise intracorporeal suturing, dismembered pyeloplasty is one of the procedures which most likely benefits from robotic assistance.


  1. 1.
    Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, et al. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150:1795.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brooks JD, Kavoussi LR, Preminger GM, Schessler WW. Comparison of open and endourological approaches to the obstructed uretero-pelvic junction. Urology. 1995;46:791–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bauer JJ, Bishoff JT, Moore RG, Chen RN, Iverson AJ, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: assessment of objective and subjective outcome. J Urol. 1999;162:692–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Klingler HC, Remzi M, Janetschek G, Kratzik C, Marberger MJ. Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol. 2003;44:340–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cestari A, Buffi NM, Lista G, et al. Retroperitoneal and transperitoneal robot-assisted pyeloplasty in adults: techniques and results. Eur Urol. 2010;58:711–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R. Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology. 2002;60:509–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cestari A, Guazzoni G, Naspro R, et al. Original dissecting balloon for retroperitoneal laparoscopy: cost-effective alternative to commercially available device. J Endourol. 2007;21:714–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gupta NP, Mukherjee S, Nayyar R, Hemal AK, Kumar R. Transmesocolic robot-assisted pyeloplasty: single center experience. J Endourol. 2009;23:945–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Porpiglia F, Billia M, Volpe A, Morra I, Scarpa RM. Transperitoneal left laparoscopic pyeloplasty with transmesocolic access to the pelvi-ureteric junction: technique description and results with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. BJU Int. 2008;101:1024–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shadpour P, Nayyeri RK, Daneshvar R, Salimi H, Radfar H. Prospective clinical trial to compare standard colon-reflecting with transmesocolic laparoscopic pyeloplasty. BJU Int. 2012;110:1814–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Minervini A, Siena G, Masieri L, Lapini A, Serni S, Carini M. Antegrade stenting in laparoscopic pyeloplasty: feasibility of the technique and time required for stent insertion. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1831–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rodrigues H, Rodrigues P, Ruela M, Bernabé A, Buogo G. Dismembered laparoscopic pyeloplasty with antegrade placement of ureteral stent: simplification of the technique. Int Braz J Urol. 2002;28:439–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gaitonde K, Roesel G, Donovan J. Novel technique of retrograde ureteral stenting during laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2008;22:1199–202.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fiori C, Morra I, Di Stasio A, Grande S, Scarpa RM, Porpiglia F. Flexible pneumocystoscopy for double J stenting during laparoscopic and robot assisted pyeloplasty: our experience. Int J Urol. 2010;17:192–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mandhani A, Goel S, Bhandari M. Is antegrade stenting superior to retrograde stenting in laparoscopic pyeloplasty? J Urol. 2004;171:1440–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chandrasekharam VV. Is retrograde stenting more reliable than antegrade stenting for pyeloplasty in infants and children? Urology. 2005;66:1301–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Arumainayagam N, Minervini A, Davenport K, et al. Antegrade versus retrograde stenting in laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2008;22:671–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    El-Feel AS, Abdel-Hakim MA, Abouel-Fettouh HI, Abdel-Hakim AM. Antegrade ureteral stenting during laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: intraoperative findings and long-term outcome. J Endourol. 2010;24:551–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shalhav AL, Mikhail AA, Orvieto MA, Gofrit ON, Gerber GS, Zorn KC. Adult stentless laparoscopic pyeloplasty. JSLS. 2007;11:8–13.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bilen CY, Bayazit Y, Güdeloğlu A, Abat D, Inci K, Doran S. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in adults: stented versus stentless. J Endourol. 2011;25:645–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sethi AS, Regan SM, Sundaram CP. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty with and without a ureteral stent. J Endourol. 2011;25:239–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Patel V. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology. 2005;66:45–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mufarrij PW, Woods M, Shah OD, et al. Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience. J Urol. 2008;180:1391–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schwentner C, Pelzer A, Neururer R, et al. Robotic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty: 5-year experience of one centre. BJU Int. 2007;100:880–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sivaraman A, Leveillee RJ, Patel MB, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a multi-institutional experience. Urology. 2012;79:351–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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;105:980–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Autorino R, Eden C, El-Ghoneimi A, et al. Robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2014;65:430–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Minnillo BJ, Cruz JA, Sayao RH, et al. Long-term experience and outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children and young adults. J Urol. 2011;185:1455–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cundy TP, Harling L, Hughes-Hallett A, et al. Meta-analysis of robot-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children: robot-assisted vs laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children. BJU Int. 2014;114:582–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dangle PP, Akhavan A, Odeleye M, et al. Ninety-day perioperative complications of pediatric robotic urological surgery: a multi-institutional study. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12(102):e1–e102.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Basatac C, Boylu U, Öno FF, Gümüs E. Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Turk J Urol. 2014;40(1):24–30.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hanske J, Sanchez A, et al. Comparison of 30-day perioperative outcomes in adults undergoing open versus minimally invasive pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: analysis of 593 patients in a prospective national database. World J Urol. 2015;33(12):2107–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lindgren BW, Hagerty J, Meyer T, Cheng EY. Robot-assisted laparoscopic reoperative repair for failed pyeloplasty in children: a safe and highly effective treatment option. J Urol. 2012;188:932–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mei H, Pu J, Yang C, Zhang H, Zheng L, Tong Q. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol. 2011;25:727–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Thom MR, Haseebuddin M, Roytman TM, Benway BM, Bhayani SB, Figenshau RS. Robot-assisted pyeloplasty: outcomes for primary and secondary repairs, a single institution experience. Int Braz J Urol. 2012;38:77–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Atug F, Burgess SV, Castle EP, Thomas R. Role of robotics in the management of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Int J Clin Pract. 2006;60:9–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    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;15:744–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Niver BE, Agalliu I, Bareket R, Mufarrij P, Shah O, Stifelman MD. Analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary versus secondary repair in 119 consecutive cases. Urology. 2012;79:689–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Desai MM, Berger AK, Brandina R, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: initial hundred patients. Urology. 2009;74:805–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    White WM, Haber GP, Goel RK, Crouzet S, Stein RJ, Kaouk JH. Single port urologic surgery: single center experience with the first 100 cases. Urology. 2009;74:801–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cestari A, Buffi NM, Lista G, et al. Feasibility and preliminary clinical outcomes of robotic laparoendoscopic single-site (R-LESS) pyeloplasty using a new single-port platform. Eur Urol. 2012;62(1):175–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giuliana Lista
    • 1
  • Nicolò Maria Buffi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Davide Maffei
    • 2
  • Giovanni Lughezzani
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyVita-Salute University, San Raffaele Hospital-TurroMilanItaly
  2. 2.Laboratory for Microbial Ecology, University of GentGentBelgium

Personalised recommendations