Advertisement

Robotic Pyeloplasty

  • Michael Louie
  • Robert I. Carey
  • Raymond J. Leveillee
  • Vipul R. Patel

Abstract

Over the last two decades, we have seen a significant paradigm shift for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction. While initially the only treatment option was an open surgical approach, the decades have shown an evolution towards less invasive therapies. The move towards minimally invasive surgery was attributed to the significant morbidity associated with an open flank incision. This has led to the growth of laparoscopic and endoluminal surgical options that provide the potential for decreased morbidity: less blood loss, less pain, shorter hospitalizations, and faster recovery.

Keywords

Renal Pelvis Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction Trocar Placement Proximal Ureter Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Janetschek G, Peschel R, Franscher F. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Urol Clin North Am 2000;27: 695–704.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jarrett T, Chan D, Charambura T, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first 100 cases. J Urol 2002; 167:1253–1256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Munver R, Sosa R, Del Pizzo J. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: history, evolution, and future. J Endourol 2004;18:748–755.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weikert S, Christoph F, Muller M, et al. Acucise endopyelotomy: a technique with limited efficacy for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults. Int J Urol 2005;12:864–868.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Albani J, Yost A, Streem S. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction: determining durability of endourological intervention. J Urol 2004;171:579–582.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baldwin D, Dunbar J, Wells N, et al. Single-center comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, acucise endopyelotomy, and open pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2003;17:155–160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conlin M. Results of selective management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Endourol 2002; 16:233–236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rabah D, Soderdahl D, McAdams P, et al. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction: does CT angiography allow better selection of therapeutic modalities and better patient outcome? J Endourol 2004;18: 427–430.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Motola J, Badlani G, Smith A. Results of 221 consecutive endopyelotomies: an 8-year follow up. J Urol 1993;149:453–456.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Preminger G, Clayman R, Nakada S, et al. A multicenter clinical trial investigating the use of a fluoroscopically controlled cutting balloon catheter for the managmenet of ureteral and ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 1997;157: 1625–1629.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carr M. Anomalies and surgery of the ureteropelvic junction in children. In Walsh P, Retik A, Vaughn E, Wein A, eds. Campbell’s Urology, 8th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 2002:463–512.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khaira H, Platt J, Cohan R, et al. Helical computed tomography for identification of crossing vessels in ureteropelvic junction obstruction — comparison with operative findings. Urology 2003;62: 35–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Streem S, Franke J, Smith J. Management of upper urinary tract obstruction. In Walsh P, Retik A, Vaughn E, Wein A, ed. Campbell’s Urology, 8th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 2002:463–512.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sampaio F, Favorito L. Ureteropelvic junction stenosis:vascularanatomicalbackgroundforendopyelotomy. J Urol 1993;150:1787–1791.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roarke M, Sandler C. Provocative imaging: diuretic renography. Urol Clin North Am 1998;25: 227–249.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Andersen J, Hynes W. Retro-caval ureter. A case diagnosed preoperatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation. Br J Urol 1949;21:109.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    O’Reilly P, Brooman P, Mak S, et al. The long term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. BJU Int 2001;87:287–289.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sung G, Gill I, Hsu T. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a pilot study. Urology 1999;53: 1099–1103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sung G, Gill I. Robotic laparoscopic surgery: a comparison of the da Vinci and Zeus systems. Urology 2001;58:893–898.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gettman M, Neururer R, Bartsch G, et al. Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology 2002;60:509–513.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gettman M, Peschel R, Neururer R, et al. A comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed with the da Vinci robotic system versus standard laparoscopic techniques: initial clinical results. Eur Urol 2002;42:453–458.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peschel R, Neururer R, Bartsch G, et al. Robotic pyeloplasty: technique and results. Urol Clin North Am 2004;31:737–741.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Siddiq F, Leveillee R, Villicana R, et al. Computerassisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: University of Miami Experience with da Vinci surgical system. J Endourol 2005;19:387–392.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Palese MA, Stifelman MD, Munver R, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: a combined experience. J Endourol 2005;19:382–386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bentas W, Wolfram M, Bruatigam R, et al. da Vinci robot assisted Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty: technique and 1 year follow up. World J Urol 2003;21:133–138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mendez-Torres F, Woods M, Thomas R. Technical modifications for robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2005;19:393–396.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Atug F, Woods M, Burgess S, et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children. J Urol 2005;174:1440–1442.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Patel V. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology 2005;66:45–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bhayani S, Link R, Varkarakis J, et al. Complete da Vinci versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty: cost analysis. J Endourol 2005;19:327–332.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Louie
    • 1
  • Robert I. Carey
    • 2
  • Raymond J. Leveillee
    • 2
  • Vipul R. Patel
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of UrologyThe Ohio State University Medical CenterColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyUniversity of MiamiMiamiUSA
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations