Abstract
Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty is a popular procedure to manage ureteropelvic junction obstruction in the current era. Robotic-assistance is particularly helpful to aid reconstructive procedures such as pyeloplasty with the benefits of three-dimensional vision and tremor control for intracorporeal suturing. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty is a popular technique as ureteropelvic junction obstruction occurs in a younger patient population likely more interested in aesthetic outcomes. Other potential advantages of laparoendoscopic single-site procedures include the potential for lower rate of port-site complications, less pain, and faster recovery times. Robotic pyeloplasty is usually compared to conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty and both show similar rates of success and complications. Learning curve is a big risk factor for complications and conversions in both robotic single-port and multiport approaches. Prevention of complications is accomplished by strategic preoperative planning and delicate tissue handling. All videos of robotic pyeloplasty procedures should be recorded and easily retrieved for review. Urine leak is the major complication that occurs and should be managed urgently, preferably with percutaneous nephrostomy drainage. Failure rates after robotic pyeloplasty are quite low and the need for secondary procedures is rare.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
References
Seideman CA, Bagrodia A, Gahan J, et al. Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty: recent developments in efficacy, outcomes, and new techniques. Curr Urol Rep. 2013;14:37.
Sung GT, Gill IS, Hsu TH. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a pilot study. Urology. 1999;53:1099.
Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, et al. Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology. 2002;60:509.
Van Batavia JP, Casale P. Robotic surgery in pediatric urology. Curr Urol Rep. 2014;15:402.
Khanna R, Stein RJ, White MA, et al. Single institution experience with robot-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site renal procedures. J Endourol. 2012;26:230.
Merseburger AS, Herrmann TR, Shariat SF, et al. EAU guidelines on robotic and single-site surgery in urology. Eur Urol. 2013;64:277.
Braga LH, Pace K, DeMaria J, et al. 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;56:848.
Uberoi J, Disick GI, Munver R. Minimally invasive surgical management of pelvic-ureteric junction obstruction: update on the current status of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. BJU Int. 2009;104:1722.
Best SL, Donnally C, Mir SA, et al. Complications during the initial experience with laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty. BJU Int. 2011;108:1326.
Brandao LF, Laydner H, Zargar H, et al. Laparoendoscopic single site surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for transperitoneal pyeloplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Ann. 2015;7:289.
Joseph RA, Goh AC, Cuevas SP, et al. “Chopstick” surgery: a novel technique improves surgeon performance and eliminates arm collision in robotic single-incision laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:1331.
Buffi NM, Lughezzani G, Fossati N, et al. Robot-assisted, single-site, dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction with the new da Vinci platform: a stage 2a study. Eur Urol. 2015;67:151.
Law J, Rowe N, Archambault J, et al. First Canadian experience with robotic single-incision pyeloplasty: comparison with multi-incision technique. Can Urol Assoc J. 2016;10:83.
Olweny EO, Park SK, Tan YK, et al. Perioperative comparison of robotic assisted laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) pyeloplasty versus conventional LESS pyeloplasty. Eur Urol. 2012;61:410.
Tobis S, Houman J, Thomer M, et al. Robot-assisted transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty: technique and perioperative outcomes from a single institution. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2013;23:702.
Cestari A, Buffi NM, Lista G, et al. Retroperitoneal and transperitoneal robot-assisted pyeloplasty in adults: techniques and results. Eur Urol. 2010;58:711.
Viterbo R, Greenberg RE, Al-Saleem T, et al. Prior abdominal surgery and radiation do not complicate the retroperitoneoscopic approach to the kidney or adrenal gland. J Urol. 2005;174:446.
Hyams ES, Kanofsky JA, Stifelman MD. Laparoscopic Doppler technology: applications in laparoscopic pyeloplasty and radical and partial nephrectomy. Urology. 2008;71:952.
Atug F, Burgess SV, Castle EP, et al. Role of robotics in the management of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Int J Clin Pract. 2006;60:9.
Niver BE, Agalliu I, Bareket R, et al. Analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyleloplasty for primary versus secondary repair in 119 consecutive cases. Urology. 2012;79:689.
Thiel DD. Navigating the difficult robotic assisted pyeloplasty. ISRN Urol. 2012;291235:2012.
Hemal AK, Mishra S, Mukharjee S, et al. Robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in patients of ureteropelvic junction obstruction with previously failed open surgical repair. Int J Urol. 2008;15:744.
Mufarrij PW, Woods M, Shah OD, et al. Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience. J Urol. 2008;180:1391.
Tewari AK, Srivastava A, Sooriakumaran P, et al. Use of a novel absorbable barbed plastic surgical suture enables a “self-cinching” technique of vesicourethral anastomosis during robot-assisted prostatectomy and improves anastomotic times. J Endourol. 2010;24:1645.
Weld KJ, Ames CD, Hruby G, et al. Evaluation of a novel knotless self-anchoring suture material for urinary tract reconstruction. Urology. 2006;67:1133.
Liatsikos E, Knoll T, Kyriazis I, et al. Unfavorable outcomes of laparoscopic pyeloplasty using barbed sutures: a multi-center experience. World J Urol. 2013;31:1441.
Sorokin I, O'Malley RL, McCandless BK, et al. Successful outcomes in robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty using a unidirectional barbed suture. J Endourol. 2016;30:660.
Shah HN, Nayyar R, Rajamahanty S, et al. Prospective evaluation of unidirectional barbed suture for various indications in surgeon-controlled robotic reconstructive urologic surgery: Wake Forest University experience. Int Urol Nephrol. 2012;44:775.
Stravodimos K, Katafigiotis I, Fragkiadis E, et al. Correcting and sharing our complications. Misplacement of pigtail catheter, during a Robot Assisted Pyeloplasty. Clinical findings, diagnosis, possible causes and endoscopic treatment. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2015;87:165.
Stein RJ, White WM, Goel RK, et al. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery using GelPort as the access platform. Eur Urol. 2010;57:132.
Cadeddu JA, Regan F, Kavoussi LR, et al. The role of computerized tomography in the evaluation of complications after laparoscopic urological surgery. J Urol. 1997;158:1349.
Etafy M, Pick D, Said S, et al. Robotic pyeloplasty: the University of California-Irvine experience. J Urol. 2011;185:2196.
Gupta NP, Nayyar R, Hemal AK, et al. Outcome analysis of robotic pyeloplasty: a large single-centre experience. BJU Int. 2010;105:980.
Hopf HL, Bahler CD, Sundaram CP. Long-term outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 2016;90:106.
Schwentner C, Pelzer A, Neururer R, et al. Robotic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty: 5-year experience of one centre. BJU Int. 2007;100:880.
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.
Danuser H, Germann C, Pelzer N, et al. One- vs 4-week stent placement after laparoscopic and robot-assisted pyeloplasty: results of a prospective randomised single-centre study. BJU Int. 2014;113:931.
Soulie M, Salomon L, Patard JJ, et al. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a multicenter study of 55 procedures. J Urol. 2001;166:48.
Ozayar A, Morgan MS, Friedlander JI, et al. Prompt management of anastomotic leak or acute obstruction after minimally invasive pyeloplasty with percutaneous nephrostomy preserves outcomes. J Urol. 2014;192:1716.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sorokin, I., Cadeddu, J.A. (2018). Pyeloplasty. In: Sotelo, R., Arriaga, J., Aron, M. (eds) Complications in Robotic Urologic Surgery . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62277-4_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62277-4_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62276-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62277-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)