Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Pediatric Urology pp 63–73Cite as

Laparoscopic and Retroperitoneoscopic Pediatric Urology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 2066 Accesses

Abstract

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in pediatric urology has gained a great interest in the past few years. Early uses of laparoscopy had diagnostic purposes and were related to the management of non-palpable testes (1970s). MIS is now used for more complex and challenging procedures, and it accounts for 10–15 % of all pediatric laparoscopic surgeries performed by urologists. The evolution of pediatric MIS is the result of recent advances in camera technology and instrumentation and of the recognition of its safety. The benefits of laparoscopic surgery include reduced postoperative pain and hospital stay, quicker recovery, reduced complication rate, and excellent cosmetic results. MIS achieves good outcomes and high acceptance between parents despite the fact that there are still controversies.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. da Cruz JA, Passerotti CC (2010) Reconstructive laparoscopy in pediatric urology. Curr Opin Urol 20(4):330–335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mushtaq I (2008) Laparoscopic paediatric urology. In: Thomas DFM, Duffy PG, Rickwood AMK (eds) Essentials of paediatric urology. Informa Healthcare, London, pp 317–329

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Traxel EJ, Minevich EA, Noh PH (2010) A review: the application of minimally invasive surgery to pediatric urology: upper urinary tract procedures. Urology 76(1):122–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Traxel EJ, Minevich EA, Noh PH (2010) A review: the application of minimally invasive surgery to pediatric urology: lower urinary tract reconstructive procedures. Urology 76(1):115–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Esposito C, Valla JS, Yeung CK (2004) Current indications for laparoscopy and retroperitoneoscopy in pediatric urology. Surg Endosc 18(11):1559–1564

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Orvieto MA, Large M, Gundeti MS (2012) Robotic paediatric urology. BJU Int 110(1):2–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Thakre AA, Bailly Y, Sun LW et al (2008) Is smaller workspace a limitation for robot performance in laparoscopy? J Urol 179(3):1138–1142

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Passerotti CC, Nguyen HT, Retik AB, Peters CA (2008) Patterns and predictors of laparoscopic complications in pediatric urology: the role of ongoing surgical volume and access techniques. J Urol 180(2):681–685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rayman R, Girotti M, Armstrong K et al (1995) Assessing the safety of pediatric laparoscopic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc 5:437–443

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hamza J (1994) Physiologie périnatale. In: Saint-Maurice C (ed) Manuel d’anesthésie pédiatrique. Ed Pradel, Paris, pp 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  11. Motoyama EK, Finder JD (2011) Respiratory physiology in infants and children. In: Smith’s: anesthesia for infants and children. Ed. Elsevier Mosby, Philadelphia (PA), pp 22–79

    Google Scholar 

  12. Strafford A (2011) Cardiovascular physiology in infants and children. In: Smith’s: anesthesia for infants and children. Ed. Elsevier Mosby, Philadelphia (PA), pp 70–108

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hamilton BD, Gatti JM, Cartwright PC, Snow BW (2000) Comparison of laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy in the pediatric population. J Urol 163(3):937–939

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ku JH, Yeo WG, Choi H, Kim HH (2004) Comparison of retroperitoneal laparoscopic and open nephrectomy for benign renal diseases in children. Urology 63(3):566–570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Piaggio L, Franc-Guimond J, Figueroa TE et al (2006) Comparison of laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy for duplication anomalies in children. J Urol 175(6):2269–2273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chertin B, Ben-Chaim J, Landau EH et al (2007) Pediatric transperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison with an age-matched group undergoing open surgery. Pediatr Surg Int 23(12):1233–1236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Blanc T, Muller C, Abdoul H et al (2013) Retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: long-term outcome and critical analysis of 10-year experience in a teaching center. Eur Urol 63(3):565–572

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Juliano RV, Mendonça RR, Meyer F et al (2011) Long-term outcome of laparoscopic pyeloplasty: multicentric comparative study of techniques and accesses. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 21(5):399–403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cherian A, Nemade H (2013) The ‘double hitch’ manoeuvre in laparoscopic pyeloplasty – early experience. J Pediatr Urol 9(4):524–526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yankovic F, Undre S, Mushtaq I (2014) Surgical technique: Retroperitoneoscopic approach for adrenal masses in children. J Pediatr Urol. 10(2):400. e1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Stanasel I, Atala A, Hemal A (2013) Robotic assisted ureteral reimplantation: current status. Curr Urol Rep 14(1):32–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lopez M, Varlet F (2010) Laparoscopic extravesical transperitoneal approach following the Lich-Gregoir technique in the treatment of vesicoureteral reflux in children. J Pediatr Surg 45(4):806–810

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Farrugia MK, Malone PS (2010) Educational article: the Mitrofanoff procedure. J Pediatr Urol 6(4):330–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wünsch L, Holterhus PM, Wessel L, Hiort O (2012) Patients with disorders of sex development (DSD) at risk of gonadal tumour development: management based on laparoscopic biopsy and molecular diagnosis. BJU Int 110(11 Pt C):E958–E965

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatric Surgery, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, Via Massarenti 11, Bologna, 40138, Italy

    Francesca Destro & Mario Lima

Authors
  1. Francesca Destro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mario Lima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Lima .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Pediatric Surgery, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Mario Lima

  2. Pediatric Urology, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda – Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milano, Italy

    Gianantonio Manzoni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Italia

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Destro, F., Lima, M. (2015). Laparoscopic and Retroperitoneoscopic Pediatric Urology. In: Lima, M., Manzoni, G. (eds) Pediatric Urology. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-5693-0_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-5693-0_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Milano

  • Print ISBN: 978-88-470-5692-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-88-470-5693-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation