Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Complications in Pediatric Robotic Urologic Surgery

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Complications in Robotic Urologic Surgery

  • 772 Accesses

Abstract

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, like other minimally invasive surgical modalities, in children with urologic conditions has proven to be a safe and effective alternative to open surgery and especially for reconstructive pediatric urologic procedures. However, potential complications can occur, especially with the learning curve that exists with all new procedures and techniques. The prevention of complications requires an integrated team approach that includes the surgeon, anesthesiologist, and operating room team members. Avoidance of preoperative complications usually involves adequate patient positioning and padding before surgery that prevents peripheral nerve injury. Intraoperative complications can occur during intra-abdominal access and port placement steps of the procedures with the potential for vessel injury or bowel injury. Postoperative complications have a wide variety of presentations that are dependent on the procedure, such as ureteral reimplantation, pyeloplasty, or complex reconstructive procedures. In general, surgeons early in their robotic surgery learning curve should gradually advance to complex reconstructive cases to help prevent both intra- and postoperative complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Van Batavia JP, Casale P. Robotic surgery in pediatric urology. Curr Urol Rep. 2014;15:402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Song SH, Kim KS. Current status of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in pediatric urology. Korean J Urol. 2014;55:499–504.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Arlen AM, Kirsch AJ. Recent developments in the use of robotic technology in pediatric urology. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2016;13:171–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Prevention of Perioperative Peripheral Neuropathies. Practice advisory for the prevention of perioperative peripheral neuropathies: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on prevention of perioperative peripheral neuropathies. Anesthesiology. 2011;114:741–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.e1–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chai TC, Birder LA. Physiology and pharmacology of the bladder and the urethra. Dallas: Elsevier Health Science; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Azevedo JLMC, Azevedo OC, Miyahira SA, et al. Injuries caused by Veress needle insertion for creation of pneumoperitoneum: a systematic literature review. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1428–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Passerotti CC, Nguyen HT, Retik AB, et al. Patterns and predictors of laparoscopic complications in pediatric urology: the role of ongoing surgical volume and access techniques. J Urol. 2008;180:681–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mishra V. Comparative study between harmonic scalpel and LigaSure vessel sealing system in open and laparoscopic surgery. World J Laparosc Surg. 2013;6:1321–4.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Obonna GC, Mishra R. Differences between thunderbeat, ligasure and harmonic scalpel energy system in minimally invasive surgery. World J Laparosc Surg. 2014;7:41–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bansal D, Defoor WR, Reddy PP, et al. Complications of robotic surgery in pediatric urology: a single institution experience. Urology. 2013;82:917–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kaplan JR, Lee Z, Eun DD, et al. Complications of minimally invasive surgery and their management. Curr Urol Rep. 2016;17:47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Casale P, Patel RP, Kolon TF. Nerve sparing robotic extravesical ureteral reimplantation. J Urol. 2008;179:1987–9. discussion 1990

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kasturi S, Sehgal SS, Christman MS, et al. Prospective long-term analysis of nerve-sparing extravesical robotic-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation. Urology. 2012;79:680–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dangle PP, Razmaria AA, Towle VL, et al. Is pelvic plexus nerve documentation feasible during robotic assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation with extravesical approach? J Pediatr Urol. 2013;9:442–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dangle PP, Shah A, Gundeti MS. Robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteric reimplantation: extravesical technique. BJU Int. 2014;114:630–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gundeti MS, Boysen WR, Shah A. Robot-assisted laparoscopic Extravesical ureteral Reimplantation: technique modifications contribute to optimized outcomes. Eur Urol. 2016;70(5):818–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Akhavan A, Avery D, Lendvay TS. Robot-assisted extravesical ureteral reimplantation: outcomes and conclusions from 78 ureters. J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10:864–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Grimsby GM, Dwyer ME, Jacobs MA, et al. Multi-institutional review of outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation. J Urol. 2015;193:1791–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schomburg JL, Haberman K, Willihnganz-Lawson KH, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation: a single surgeon comparison to open surgery. J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10:875–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Silay MS, Baek M, Koh CJ. Robot-assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation in children: top-down suturing technique without stent placement. J Endourol Endourol Soc. 2015;29:864–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hopf HL, Bahler CD, Sundaram CP. Long-term outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 2016;90:106–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bansal D, Cost NG, DeFoor WR, et al. Infant robotic pyeloplasty: comparison with an open cohort. J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10:380–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Casale P. Robotic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population. Curr Urol Rep. 2009;10:55–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Casella DP, Fox JA, Schneck FX, et al. Cost analysis of pediatric robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2013;189:1083–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Minnillo BJ, Cruz JAS, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Singh P, Dogra PN, Kumar R, et al. Outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: a single center experience. J Endourol Endourol Soc. 2012;26:249–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tasian GE, Casale P. The robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: gateway to advanced reconstruction. Urol Clin North Am. 2015;42:89–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Silva MV, Levy AC, Finkelstein JB, et al. Is peri-operative urethral catheter drainage enough? The case for stentless pediatric robotic pyeloplasty. J Pediatr Urol. 2015;11:175.e1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Famakinwa OJ, Rosen AM, Gundeti MS. Robot-assisted laparoscopic Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy technique and outcomes of extravesical and intravesical approaches. Eur Urol. 2013;64:831–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Grimsby GM, Jacobs MA, Gargollo PC. Comparison of complications of robot-assisted laparoscopic and open Appendicovesicostomy in children. J Urol. 2015;194:772–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gundeti MS, Acharya SS, Zagaja GP, et al. Paediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic augmentation ileocystoplasty and Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy (RALIMA): feasibility of and initial experience with the University of Chicago technique. BJU Int. 2011;107:962–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Murthy P, Cohn JA, Selig RB, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic augmentation ileocystoplasty and Mitrofanoff Appendicovesicostomy in children: updated interim results. Eur Urol. 2015;68:1069–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wille MA, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL, et al. Continence outcomes in patients undergoing robotic assisted laparoscopic mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy. J Urol. 2011;185:1438–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Razmaria AA, Marchetti PE, Prasad SM, et al. Does robot-assisted laparoscopic ileocystoplasty (RALI) reduce peritoneal adhesions compared with open surgery? BJU Int. 2014;113:468–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Schlomer BJ, Copp HL. Cumulative incidence of outcomes and urologic procedures after augmentation cystoplasty. J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10:1043–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Gargollo PC. Robotic-assisted bladder neck repair: feasibility and outcomes. Urol Clin North Am. 2015;42:111–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Herz D, Smith J, McLeod D, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic management of duplex renal anomaly: comparison of surgical outcomes to traditional pure laparoscopic and open surgery. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12:44.e1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Malik RD, Pariser JJ, Gundeti MS. Outcomes in pediatric robot-assisted laparoscopic heminephrectomy compared with contemporary open and laparoscopic series. J Endourol Endourol Soc. 2015;29:1346–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wallis MC, Khoury AE, Lorenzo AJ, et al. Outcome analysis of retroperitoneal laparoscopic heminephrectomy in children. J Urol. 2006;175:2277–80. discussion 2280–2282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Pediatric Urology, Department of Surgery, Texas Children’s Hospital, and Scott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, 6701 Fannin St, Wallace Tower, Suite 620, Houston, 77030, TX, USA

    Rodolfo A. Elizondo, Gene O. Huang & Chester J. Koh MD, FACS, FAAP

Authors
  1. Rodolfo A. Elizondo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gene O. Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chester J. Koh MD, FACS, FAAP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chester J. Koh MD, FACS, FAAP .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

    René Sotelo

  2. Department of Urology, Hospital CIMA, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico

    Juan Arriaga

  3. USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

    Monish Aron

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Elizondo, R.A., Huang, G.O., Koh, C.J. (2018). Complications in Pediatric Robotic Urologic Surgery. 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_33

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62277-4_33

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62276-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62277-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation