Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children

Fatih Atug, Michael Woods, Scott V. Burgess, Erik P Castle, Raju Thomas

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

117 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Historically, open pyeloplasty has been the gold standard of treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in the pediatric age group. The prospect of using technology such as the robot in this age group has been a concern. Several nonurological robotic procedures have been performed in children. We undertook a retrospective study to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population. Materials and Methods: Seven patients 6 to 15 years old underwent robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty at our institution between June 2003 and November 2004. All patients underwent dismembered pyeloplasty (Anderson-Hynes). Variables analyzed included length of stay, estimated blood loss, operative time, anastomosis time and docked robotic time. Results: Mean followup was 10.9 months (range 2 to 18). Mean length of stay was 1.2 days (range 1 to 3). Mean operative time was 184 minutes (range 165 to 204), with a mean robotic anastomosis time of 39.5 minutes (30 to 46). Mean estimated blood loss was 31.4 ml (range 10 to 50). Stent size varied from 3.8Fr to 6Fr. Six of the 7 patients have had followup studies demonstrating improved drainage, symptom resolution and no evidence of obstruction on diuretic renal scans or excretory urogram. The remaining patient is awaiting 3-month followup evaluation. Conclusions: Robotic assisted pyeloplasty can be safely performed in the pediatric population. The precision in dissection, incision and suturing allows for comparable results to open pyeloplasty in this age group.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1440-1442
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume174
Issue number4 I
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Robotics
Age Groups
Pediatrics
Operative Time
Length of Stay
Urography
Diuretics
Population
Stents
Dissection
Drainage
Retrospective Studies
Technology
Kidney

Keywords

  • Hydronephrosis
  • Pediatrics
  • Robotics
  • Ureteral obstruction
  • Urologic surgical procedures

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children. / Atug, Fatih; Woods, Michael; Burgess, Scott V.; Castle, Erik P; Thomas, Raju.

In: Journal of Urology, Vol. 174, No. 4 I, 10.2005, p. 1440-1442.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Atug, F, Woods, M, Burgess, SV, Castle, EP & Thomas, R 2005, 'Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children', Journal of Urology, vol. 174, no. 4 I, pp. 1440-1442. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000173131.64558.c9
Atug, Fatih ; Woods, Michael ; Burgess, Scott V. ; Castle, Erik P ; Thomas, Raju. / Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children. In: Journal of Urology. 2005 ; Vol. 174, No. 4 I. pp. 1440-1442.
@article{8eb3dfe7e1924f0c8f5459caa45fa387,
title = "Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children",
abstract = "Purpose: Historically, open pyeloplasty has been the gold standard of treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in the pediatric age group. The prospect of using technology such as the robot in this age group has been a concern. Several nonurological robotic procedures have been performed in children. We undertook a retrospective study to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population. Materials and Methods: Seven patients 6 to 15 years old underwent robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty at our institution between June 2003 and November 2004. All patients underwent dismembered pyeloplasty (Anderson-Hynes). Variables analyzed included length of stay, estimated blood loss, operative time, anastomosis time and docked robotic time. Results: Mean followup was 10.9 months (range 2 to 18). Mean length of stay was 1.2 days (range 1 to 3). Mean operative time was 184 minutes (range 165 to 204), with a mean robotic anastomosis time of 39.5 minutes (30 to 46). Mean estimated blood loss was 31.4 ml (range 10 to 50). Stent size varied from 3.8Fr to 6Fr. Six of the 7 patients have had followup studies demonstrating improved drainage, symptom resolution and no evidence of obstruction on diuretic renal scans or excretory urogram. The remaining patient is awaiting 3-month followup evaluation. Conclusions: Robotic assisted pyeloplasty can be safely performed in the pediatric population. The precision in dissection, incision and suturing allows for comparable results to open pyeloplasty in this age group.",
keywords = "Hydronephrosis, Pediatrics, Robotics, Ureteral obstruction, Urologic surgical procedures",
author = "Fatih Atug and Michael Woods and Burgess, {Scott V.} and Castle, {Erik P} and Raju Thomas",
year = "2005",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1097/01.ju.0000173131.64558.c9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "174",
pages = "1440--1442",
journal = "Journal of Urology",
issn = "0022-5347",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4 I",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children

AU - Atug, Fatih

AU - Woods, Michael

AU - Burgess, Scott V.

AU - Castle, Erik P

AU - Thomas, Raju

PY - 2005/10

Y1 - 2005/10

N2 - Purpose: Historically, open pyeloplasty has been the gold standard of treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in the pediatric age group. The prospect of using technology such as the robot in this age group has been a concern. Several nonurological robotic procedures have been performed in children. We undertook a retrospective study to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population. Materials and Methods: Seven patients 6 to 15 years old underwent robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty at our institution between June 2003 and November 2004. All patients underwent dismembered pyeloplasty (Anderson-Hynes). Variables analyzed included length of stay, estimated blood loss, operative time, anastomosis time and docked robotic time. Results: Mean followup was 10.9 months (range 2 to 18). Mean length of stay was 1.2 days (range 1 to 3). Mean operative time was 184 minutes (range 165 to 204), with a mean robotic anastomosis time of 39.5 minutes (30 to 46). Mean estimated blood loss was 31.4 ml (range 10 to 50). Stent size varied from 3.8Fr to 6Fr. Six of the 7 patients have had followup studies demonstrating improved drainage, symptom resolution and no evidence of obstruction on diuretic renal scans or excretory urogram. The remaining patient is awaiting 3-month followup evaluation. Conclusions: Robotic assisted pyeloplasty can be safely performed in the pediatric population. The precision in dissection, incision and suturing allows for comparable results to open pyeloplasty in this age group.

AB - Purpose: Historically, open pyeloplasty has been the gold standard of treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in the pediatric age group. The prospect of using technology such as the robot in this age group has been a concern. Several nonurological robotic procedures have been performed in children. We undertook a retrospective study to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population. Materials and Methods: Seven patients 6 to 15 years old underwent robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty at our institution between June 2003 and November 2004. All patients underwent dismembered pyeloplasty (Anderson-Hynes). Variables analyzed included length of stay, estimated blood loss, operative time, anastomosis time and docked robotic time. Results: Mean followup was 10.9 months (range 2 to 18). Mean length of stay was 1.2 days (range 1 to 3). Mean operative time was 184 minutes (range 165 to 204), with a mean robotic anastomosis time of 39.5 minutes (30 to 46). Mean estimated blood loss was 31.4 ml (range 10 to 50). Stent size varied from 3.8Fr to 6Fr. Six of the 7 patients have had followup studies demonstrating improved drainage, symptom resolution and no evidence of obstruction on diuretic renal scans or excretory urogram. The remaining patient is awaiting 3-month followup evaluation. Conclusions: Robotic assisted pyeloplasty can be safely performed in the pediatric population. The precision in dissection, incision and suturing allows for comparable results to open pyeloplasty in this age group.

KW - Hydronephrosis

KW - Pediatrics

KW - Robotics

KW - Ureteral obstruction

KW - Urologic surgical procedures

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=24944510409&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=24944510409&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.ju.0000173131.64558.c9

DO - 10.1097/01.ju.0000173131.64558.c9

M3 - Article

C2 - 16145459

AN - SCOPUS:24944510409

VL - 174

SP - 1440

EP - 1442

JO - Journal of Urology

JF - Journal of Urology

SN - 0022-5347

IS - 4 I

ER -