Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic Pyeloplasty

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Endourology Progress

  • 522 Accesses

Abstract

Pyeloplasty is one of the most effective treatments for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). Laparoscopic pyeloplasty has been performed as a less invasive surgery, and its success rates are similar to those of open surgery. Long-term follow-up results also indicate that laparoscopic pyeloplasty is one of the standard treatment for UPJO. However, intracorporeal suture has remained a technical weakness. The da Vinci surgical robot system can address this difficulty. The first case of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty was performed in 2000. After that, number of surgeries has been gradually increasing. The robot allows the surgeon to overcome the technical difficulties with intracorporeal suturing, which is the rate-limiting step in laparoscopic surgery. However, there are a few relevant papers for the robotic pyeloplasty, and the number of patients is small. If the number of the robotic pyeloplasty increases and a lot of related papers are published, the safety and effectiveness of the operation will be proven, and it will be the standard treatment for UPJO.

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

Access this chapter

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 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Atug F, Woods M, Burgess SV, et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children. J Urol. 2005;174:1440–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autorino R, Cadeddu JA, Desai MM, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in urology: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol. 2011;59:26–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autorino R, Eden C, El-Ghoneimi A, et al. Robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2014;65(2):430–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babbar P, Hemal AK. Robot-assisted urologic surgery in 2010—advancements and future outlook. Urol Ann. 2011;3:1–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bernardo N, Smith AD. Endopyelotomy review. Arch Esp Urol. 1999;52:541–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bhayani SB, Link RE, Varkarakis JM, et al. Complete da Vinci versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty: cost analysis. J Endourol. 2005;19:327–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird VG, Leveillee RJ, Eldefrawy A, et al. Comparison of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a single-center study. Urology. 2011;77:730–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braga LHP, 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;56:848–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks JD, Kavoussi LR, Preminger GM, et al. Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urology. 1995;46:791–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cassis AN, Brannen GE, Bush WH, et al. Endopyelotomy: review of results and complications. J Urol. 1991;146:1492–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cestari A, Buffi NM, Lista G, et al. Feasibility and preliminary clinical outcomes of robotic laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty using a new single-port platform. Eur Urol. 2012;62:175–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan KW, Lee KH, Tam YH, et al. Early experience of robotic-assisted reconstructive operations in pediatric urology. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2010;20:379–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis DM. Intubated ureterotomy; result after four years. J Urol. 1947;57:233–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Erdeljan P, Caumartin Y, Warren J, et al. Robot-assisted pyeloplasty: follow-up of first Canadian experience with comparison of outcomes between experienced and trainee surgeons. J Endourol. 2010;24:1447–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etafy M, Pick D, Said S, et al. Robotic pyeloplasty: the University of California-Irvine experience. J Urol. 2011;185:2196–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgiou AN, Rassweiler J, Herrmann TR, et al. Evolution and simplified terminology of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS), and mini-laparoscopy (ML). World J Urol. 2012;30:573–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber GS, Kim JC. Ureteroscopic endopyelotomy in the treatment of patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 2000;55:198–202.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gettman MT, Peschel R, Neururer R, et al. A comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed with the daVinci robotic system versus standard laparoscopic techniques: initial clinical results. Eur Urol. 2002a;42:453–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, et al. Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology. 2002b;60(3):509–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta NP, Mukherjee S, Nayyar R, et al. Transmesocolic robot-assisted pyeloplasty: single center experience. J Endourol. 2009;23:945–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollis MV, Cho PS, Yu RN. Pediatric robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Am J Robot Surg. 2015;2(1):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopf HL, Bahler CD, Sundaram CP. Long-term outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 2016;90:106–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inagaki T, Rha KH, Ong AM, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: current status. BJU Int. 2005;95(Suppl 2):102–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarrett TW, Chan DY, Charambura TC, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first 100 cases. J Urol. 2002;167:1253–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaouk JH, Goel RK, Haber GP, et al. Single-port laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2008;72:1190–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaouk JH, Goel RK, Haber GP, et al. Robotic single-port transumbilical surgery in humans: initial report. BJU Int. 2009;103:366–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaouk JH, Autorino R, Kim FJ, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in urology: worldwide multi-institutional analysis of 1076 cases. Eur Urol. 2011;60:998–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavoussi LR, Peters CA. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150:1891–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kim SC, Kang T, Park H. Experience with laparoscopic pyeloplasty, including robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery, for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Korean J Urol. 2009;50:996–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kutikov A, Nguyen M, Guzzo T, et al. Robot assisted pyeloplasty in the infant-lessons learned. J Urol. 2006;176:2237–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(3–4):83–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link RE, Bhayani SB, Kavoussi LR. A prospective comparison of robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Ann Surg. 2006;243:486–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas SM, Sundaram CP, Wolf JS, et al. Factors that impact the outcome of minimally invasive pyeloplasty: results of the multi-institutional laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty collaborative group. J Urol. 2012;187:522–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClinton S, Steyn JH, Hussey JK. Retrograde balloon dilatation for pelviureteric junction obstruction. Br J Urol. 1993;71:152–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meretyk I, Meretyk S, Clayman RV. Endopyelotomy: comparison of ureteroscopic retrograde and antegrade percutaneous techniques. J Urol. 1992;148:775–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Minnillo BJ, Cruz JA, 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  Google Scholar 

  • Motola JA, Badlani GH, Smith AD. Results of 221 consecutive endopyelotomies: an 8-year follow-up. J Urol. 1993;149:453–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mufarrij PW, Woods M, Shah OD, et al. Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience. J Urol. 2008;180:1391–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakada SY, Johnson M. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Retrograde endopyelotomy. Urol Clin North Am. 2000;27:677–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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;79:689–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notley RG, Beaugie JM. The long-term follow-up of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty for hydronephrosis. Br J Urol. 1973;45:464–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly PH, Brooman PJ, Mak S, et al. The long-term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. BJU Int. 2001;87:287–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen LH, Jorgensen TM. Computer assisted pyeloplasty in children: the retroperitoneal approach. J Urol. 2004;171:2629–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen LH, Rawashdeh YF, Jorgensen TM. Pediatric robot assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty: a 5-year experience. J Urol. 2007;178:2137–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olweny EO, Park SK, Tan YK, et al. Perioperative comparison of robotic assisted laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty versus conventional less pyeloplasty. Eur Urol. 2012;61:410–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palese MA, Munver R, Phillips CK, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. JSLS. 2005;9(3):252–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Passerotti CC, Passerotti AM, Dall’Oglio MF, et al. Comparing the quality of the suture anastomosis and the learning curves associated with performing open, freehand, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in a swine animal model. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:576–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persky L, Krause JR, Boltuch RL. Initial complications and late results in dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1977;118:162–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rassweiler JJ, Teber D, Frede T. Complications of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. World J Urol. 2008;26:539–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samarasekera D, Stein RJ. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic approaches to the ureter: pyeloplasty and ureteral reimplantation. Indian J Urol. 2014;30(3):293–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, et al. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150:1795–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schwentner C, Pelzer A, Neururer R, et al. Robotic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty: 5-year experience of one centre. BJU Int. 2007;100:880–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seideman CA, Sleeper JP, Lotan Y. Cost comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2012a;26:1044–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seideman CA, Tan YK, Faddegon S, et al. Robot-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty: technique using the da vinci si robotic platform. J Endourol. 2012b;26:971–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seo IY, Lee JW, Rim JS. Laparoendoscopic single-site radical nephrectomy: a comparison with conventional laparoscopy. J Endourol. 2011;25(3):465–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seo IY, Oh TH, Lee JW. Long-term follow-up results of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Korean J Urol. 2014;55:656–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siqueira TM Jr, Nadu A, Kuo RL, et al. Laparoscopic treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 2002;60:973–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sivaraman A, Leveillee RJ, Patel MB, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a multi-institutional experience. Urology. 2012;79(2):351–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song SH, Lee C, Jung J, et al. A comparative study of pediatric open pyeloplasty, laparoscopy-assisted extracorporeal pyeloplasty, and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0175026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein RJ, White WM, Goel RK, et al. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery using gelport as the access platform. Eur Urol. 2009;57:136–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobis S, Venigalla S, Balakumaran K, et al. Analysis of a large single-center experience with robot-assisted pyeloplasty. Int J Urol. 2013;20(2):230–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripp BM, Homsy YL. Neonatal hydronephrosis—the controversy and the management. Pediatr Nephrol. 1995;9:503–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weise ES, Winfield HN. Robotic computer-assisted pyeloplasty versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2006;20:813–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanke BV, Lallas CD, Pagnani C, et al. The minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a review of our experience during the last decade. J Urol. 2008;180:1397–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Institute of Wonkwang Medical Science, Wonkwang University School of Medicine, Iksan, South Korea

    Ill Young Seo

Authors
  1. Ill Young Seo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ill Young Seo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Eddie Shu-yin Chan

  2. Department of Urology and Andrology, Kansai Medical University, Hirakata, Osaka, Japan

    Tadashi Matsuda

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Seo, I.Y. (2019). Robotic Pyeloplasty. In: Chan, Ey., Matsuda, T. (eds) Endourology Progress. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3465-8_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3465-8_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-3464-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-3465-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation