Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery 1/2018

01-03-2018 | Original Article

A prospective randomised comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneoscopic approaches for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in a single surgeon, single centre study

Authors: Wael Y. Khoder, Raphaela Waidelich, Abdel Majeed Al Ghamdi, Therese Schulz, Armin Becker, Christian G. Stief

Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Literature data comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus retroperitoneoscopic approaches are still lacking, probably due to difficulties with the retroperitoneoscopic approach. The objective is to compare the results of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty using transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches in a prospective randomised single surgeon study. 80 consecutive patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction were prospectively randomised between transperitoneal (40 patients, group 1) and retroperitoneal (40 patients, group 2) robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. All patients underwent preoperative clinical evaluation, retrograde urography, and diuretic isotope renography. All operations were performed by a single-experienced surgeon. Patients were followed up by postoperative clinical examination, sonography, and diuretic renography at 3–6 months. Both approaches were compared with regard to patients’ demographic data, radiological and operative findings, and functional outcomes, and correlations were statistically evaluated. Preoperative demographic, clinical, and renal scintigraphy data were comparable for both groups. No open/laparoscopic conversions were necessary. Mean operative times (skin to skin) were 125 (70–305) and 118 (60–345) min for groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.726). Only minor complications were found in three and four patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively. Pyeloplasty technique included a renal pelvis flap in three patients from either group,; otherwise, the Anderson–Hynes technique was employed. None of perioperative patient and operative parameters, including approach, had a significant impact on operative time or functional outcomes. Median follow-up was 3 months for both groups. Success was recorded in 39 and 38 patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively, while equivocal results were obtained in 3 cases. Postoperative 3 month renal scintigraphy showed no significant GFR or split renal function differences between the groups. There was no detectable postoperative deterioration in ipsilateral split renal function or hydronephrosis grade. Robotic-assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty exhibits low morbidity and satisfactory operative and functional outcomes comparable to the usually preferred laparoscopic approach. Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty has high success rates regardless of the used approach. Accordingly, every surgeon should use the approach which he/she feels most comfortable with.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Eden CG (2007) Minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a critical analysis of results. Eur Urol 52:983–989CrossRefPubMed Eden CG (2007) Minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a critical analysis of results. Eur Urol 52:983–989CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Baldwin DD, Dunbar JA, Wells N, McDougall EM (2003) Single center comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, Acucise endopyelotomy, and open pyeloplasty. J Endourol 17:155CrossRefPubMed Baldwin DD, Dunbar JA, Wells N, McDougall EM (2003) Single center comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, Acucise endopyelotomy, and open pyeloplasty. J Endourol 17:155CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
go back to reference Klingler HC, Remzi M, Janetschek G, Kratzik C, Marberger MJ (2003) Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol 44:340–345CrossRefPubMed Klingler HC, Remzi M, Janetschek G, Kratzik C, Marberger MJ (2003) Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol 44:340–345CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Cestari A, Maria BN, Lista G, Sangalli M, Scapaticci E, Fabbri F, Lazzeri M, Rigatti P, Guazzoni G (2010) Retroperitoneal and transperitoneal robot-assisted pyeloplasty in adults: techniques and results. Eur Urol 58:711–718CrossRefPubMed Cestari A, Maria BN, Lista G, Sangalli M, Scapaticci E, Fabbri F, Lazzeri M, Rigatti P, Guazzoni G (2010) Retroperitoneal and transperitoneal robot-assisted pyeloplasty in adults: techniques and results. Eur Urol 58:711–718CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R (2002) Anderson–Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology 60:509–513CrossRefPubMed Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R (2002) Anderson–Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology 60:509–513CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Autorino R, Eden C, El-Ghoneimi A, Guazzoni G, Buffi BN, Peters CA, Stein RJ, Gettman M (2014) Robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 6:430–452CrossRef Autorino R, Eden C, El-Ghoneimi A, Guazzoni G, Buffi BN, Peters CA, Stein RJ, Gettman M (2014) Robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 6:430–452CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Shoma AM, El Nahas AR, Bazeed MA (2007) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a prospective randomized comparison between the transperitoneal approach and retroperitoneoscopy. Urol J 178:2020–2024CrossRef Shoma AM, El Nahas AR, Bazeed MA (2007) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a prospective randomized comparison between the transperitoneal approach and retroperitoneoscopy. Urol J 178:2020–2024CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Montorsi F (2007) A plea for integrating laparoscopy and robotic surgery in everyday urology: the rules of the game. Eur Urol 52:307–309CrossRefPubMed Montorsi F (2007) A plea for integrating laparoscopy and robotic surgery in everyday urology: the rules of the game. Eur Urol 52:307–309CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Cestari A, Buffi NM, Lista G, Sangalli M, Scapaticci E, Fabbri F, Lazzeri M, Rigatti P, Guazzoni G (2010) Retroperitoneal and transperitoneal robot-assisted pyeloplasty in adults: techniques and results. Eur Urol 58:711–718CrossRefPubMed Cestari A, Buffi NM, Lista G, Sangalli M, Scapaticci E, Fabbri F, Lazzeri M, Rigatti P, Guazzoni G (2010) Retroperitoneal and transperitoneal robot-assisted pyeloplasty in adults: techniques and results. Eur Urol 58:711–718CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Autorino R, Eden C, El-Ghoneimi A, Guazzoni G, Buffi NM, Peters CA, Stein RJ, Gettman M (2014) Robot-assisted and Laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 65:430–452CrossRefPubMed Autorino R, Eden C, El-Ghoneimi A, Guazzoni G, Buffi NM, Peters CA, Stein RJ, Gettman M (2014) Robot-assisted and Laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 65:430–452CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Bachmann A, Ruszat R, Forster T et al (2006) Retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO): solving the technical difficulties. Eur Urol 49:264–272CrossRefPubMed Bachmann A, Ruszat R, Forster T et al (2006) Retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO): solving the technical difficulties. Eur Urol 49:264–272CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Hemal AK, Mukherjee S, Singh K (2010) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus robotic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a series of 60 cases performed by a single surgeon. Can J Urol 17:5012–5016PubMed Hemal AK, Mukherjee S, Singh K (2010) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus robotic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a series of 60 cases performed by a single surgeon. Can J Urol 17:5012–5016PubMed
16.
go back to reference Bird VG, Leveillee RJ, Eldefrawy A, Bracho J, Aziz MS (2011) Comparison of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a single-center study. Urology 77:730–734CrossRefPubMed Bird VG, Leveillee RJ, Eldefrawy A, Bracho J, Aziz MS (2011) Comparison of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a single-center study. Urology 77:730–734CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Riachy E, Cost NG, Defoor WR, Reddy PP, Minevich EA, Noh PH (2013) Pediatric standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a comparative single institution study. J Urol 189:283–287CrossRefPubMed Riachy E, Cost NG, Defoor WR, Reddy PP, Minevich EA, Noh PH (2013) Pediatric standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a comparative single institution study. J Urol 189:283–287CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Lucas SM, Sundaram CP, Wolf JS Jr et al (2012) Factors that impact the outcome of minimally invasive pyeloplasty: results of the Multiinstitutional Laparoscopic and Robotic Pyeloplasty Collaborative Group. J Urol 187:522–527CrossRefPubMed Lucas SM, Sundaram CP, Wolf JS Jr et al (2012) Factors that impact the outcome of minimally invasive pyeloplasty: results of the Multiinstitutional Laparoscopic and Robotic Pyeloplasty Collaborative Group. J Urol 187:522–527CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Khoder WY, Waidelich R, Becker AJ, Karl A, Haseke N, Bauer RM, Stief CG, Bachmann A, Mundorff NE (2014) Patients’ perception of surgical outcomes and quality of life after retroperitoneoscopic and open pyeloplasty. Urol Int 92(1):74–82CrossRefPubMed Khoder WY, Waidelich R, Becker AJ, Karl A, Haseke N, Bauer RM, Stief CG, Bachmann A, Mundorff NE (2014) Patients’ perception of surgical outcomes and quality of life after retroperitoneoscopic and open pyeloplasty. Urol Int 92(1):74–82CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Khoder WY, Sroka R, Siegert S, Stief CG, Becker AJ (2012) Outcome of laser-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy without ischaemia for peripheral renal tumours. World J Urol 30(5):633–638CrossRefPubMed Khoder WY, Sroka R, Siegert S, Stief CG, Becker AJ (2012) Outcome of laser-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy without ischaemia for peripheral renal tumours. World J Urol 30(5):633–638CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Mufarrij PW, Woods M, Shah OD et al (2008) Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6 year, multi-institutional experience. J Urol 180:1391–1396CrossRefPubMed Mufarrij PW, Woods M, Shah OD et al (2008) Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6 year, multi-institutional experience. J Urol 180:1391–1396CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Gupta NP, Nayyar R, Hemal AK, Mukherjee S, Kumar R, Dogra PN (2010) Outcome analysis of robotic pyeloplasty: a large single-centre experience. BJU Int 105:980–983CrossRefPubMed Gupta NP, Nayyar R, Hemal AK, Mukherjee S, Kumar R, Dogra PN (2010) Outcome analysis of robotic pyeloplasty: a large single-centre experience. BJU Int 105:980–983CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Cestari A, Buffi NM, Lista G et al (2010) Retroperitoneal and transperitoneal robot-assisted pyeloplasty in adults: techniques and results. Eur Urol 58:711–718CrossRefPubMed Cestari A, Buffi NM, Lista G et al (2010) Retroperitoneal and transperitoneal robot-assisted pyeloplasty in adults: techniques and results. Eur Urol 58:711–718CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Etafy M, Pick D, Said S et al (2011) Robotic pyeloplasty: the University of California-Irvine experience. J Urol 185:2196–2200CrossRefPubMed Etafy M, Pick D, Said S et al (2011) Robotic pyeloplasty: the University of California-Irvine experience. J Urol 185:2196–2200CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Sivaraman A, Leveillee RJ, Patel MB et al (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a multi-institutional experience. Urology 79:351–355CrossRefPubMed Sivaraman A, Leveillee RJ, Patel MB et al (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a multi-institutional experience. Urology 79:351–355CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A prospective randomised comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneoscopic approaches for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in a single surgeon, single centre study
Authors
Wael Y. Khoder
Raphaela Waidelich
Abdel Majeed Al Ghamdi
Therese Schulz
Armin Becker
Christian G. Stief
Publication date
01-03-2018
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
Journal of Robotic Surgery / Issue 1/2018
Print ISSN: 1863-2483
Electronic ISSN: 1863-2491
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0707-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Journal of Robotic Surgery 1/2018 Go to the issue