Top

Published in:

01-05-2014 | Minimally Invasive Surgery (V Bird and M Desai, Section Editors)

Robotic Surgery in Pediatric Urology

Authors: Jason P. Van Batavia, Pasquale Casale

Published in: Current Urology Reports | Issue 5/2014

Abstract

Minimally invasive laparoscopic procedures for urological diseases in children have proven to be safe and effective, with outcomes comparable to open procedures. Technical advances, including improved instruments and high-definition cameras, have contributed to the expanded role of minimal invasive surgery (MIS) in children. The major drawback to laparoscopy has been the relatively steep learning curve due to the technical difficulties of suturing and the limitations of instrument dexterity and range of motion. Recently, robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) has gained popularity in both adult and pediatric urology. RAS has several advantages over conventional laparoscopic surgery, particularly in the improved exposure via magnified 3-dimensional view and simplification of suturing with the increased degree of freedom and movement of the robotic arm. This review discusses the role of RAS in pediatric urology and provides technical aspects of RAS in specific urologic procedures as well.

Tobias JD. Anaesthesia for minimally invasive surgery in children. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2002;16:115.PubMedCrossRef

Freud E. Minimally invasive surgery in childhood: current status. Isr Med Assoc J. 2000;2:377.PubMed

Georgeson KE, Owings E. Advances in minimally invasive surgery in children. Am J Surg. 2000;180:362.PubMedCrossRef

Yee DS, Shanberg AM, Duel BP, Rodriguez E, Eichel L, Rajpoot D. Initial comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. Urology. 2006;67:599–602.PubMedCrossRef

Olsen H, Jorgensen, T. Robotic vs. standard retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty in children. Br J Urol. 2003; 91.

Peters CA. Robotic assisted surgery in pediatric urology. Pediatr Endosurg Innov Technol. 2003;7:403–14.CrossRef

McCullough TC, Barret E, Cathelineau X, Rozet F, Galiano M, Vallancien G. Role of robotics for prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2009;19(1):65–8.PubMedCrossRef

Camarillo DB, Krummel TM, Salisbury Jr JK. Robotic technology in surgery: past, present, and future. Am J Surg. 2004;188:2S–15.PubMedCrossRef

Peters C. Laparoscopy in pediatric urology: adoption of innovative technology. BJU Int. 2003;92 Suppl 1:52–7.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Pedraza R, Weiser A, Franco I. (2004) Laparoscopic appendicovesicostomy (Mitrofanoff procedure) in a child using the da Vinci robotic system. J Urol. 2004;171:1652–3.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Gundeti MS, Eng MK, Reynolds WS, Zagaja GP. Pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic augmentation ileocystoplasty and Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy: complete intracorporeal–-initial case report. Urology. 2008;72:1144–7.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Gettman MT, Peschel R, Neururer R, Bartsch G. A comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed with the daVinci robotic system versus standard laparoscopic techniques: initial clinical results. Eur Urol. 2002;42:453–7. discussion 457–8, 2002.PubMedCrossRef

13.••

Lee RS, Retik AB, Borer JG, et al. Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol. 2006;175:683. One of the largest case-control series comparing robotic and open pyeloplasty. The authors found that robotic pyeloplasty led to decreased hospital stay and narcotic use, with similar operative times as the open technique.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Sakka SG, Huettemann E, Petrat G, et al. Transoesophageal echocardiographic assessment of haemodynamic changes during laparoscopic herniorrhaphy in small children. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84(3):330–4.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Westgarth-Taylor C, de Lijster L, van Bogerijen G, et al. A prospective assessment of renal oxygenation in children undergoing laparoscopy using near-infrared spectroscopy. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(10):3696–704.PubMedCrossRef

16.•

Korets R, Mues AC, Graversen JA, et al. Validating the use of the Mimic dV-Trainer for robotic surgery skill acquisition among urology residents. Urology. 2011;78(6):1326–30. This randomized study of urologic residents found that curriculum-based training with the Mimic dV-Trainer and da Vinci Surgical System console significantly improves robotic surgery aptitude.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Larobina M, Nottle P. Complete evidence regarding major visceral injuries during laparoscopic access. Surg Laparosc Endosc Technol. 2005;5(3):119–23.CrossRef

18.

Catarci M, Carlini M, Santoro E. Major and minor injuries during creation of pneumoperitoneum. A multicenter study of 12,919 cases. Surg Endosc. 2001;15:566–9.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Casale P. Laparoscopic and robotic approach to genitourinary anomalies in children. Urol Clin N Am. 2010;37(2):279–86.CrossRef

20.

El-Ghoneimi. Paediatric laparoscopic surgery. Curr Opin Urol. 2003;13:329–35.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Basiri A, Simforoosh N, Heidari M, Moghaddam SM, Otookesh H. Laparoscopic v open donor nephrectomy for pediatric kidney recipients: preliminary report of a randomized controlled trial. J Endourol. 2007;21:1033–6.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Koyle MA, Woo HH, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic nephrectomy in the first year of life. J Pediatr Surg. 1993;28(5):693–5.PubMedCrossRef

23.

El-Ghoneimi A, Valla JS, Steyaert H, Aigrain Y. Laparoscopic renal surgery via a retroperitoneal approach in children. J Urol. 1998;160:1138–41.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Gargollo P. Hidden incision endoscopic surgery: description of technique, parental satisfaction and applications. J Urol. 2011;185(4):1425–31.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Lee RS, Sethi AS, Passerotti CC, Retik AB, Borer JG, Nguyen HT, et al. Robot assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a viable and safe option in children. J Urol. 2009;181:823–8.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Casale P. Robotic pediatric urology. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2008;5(1):59–64.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Tan H. Laparoscopic Anderson–Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty in children. J Urol. 1999;162:1045–7.PubMedCrossRef

28.•

Mesrobian HG. Bypass pyeloplasty.: description of a procedure and initial results. J Pediatr Urol. 2009;5:34–6. The first paper to describe the “bypass pyeloplasty” – a simple technique ideal for high inserting ureters that does not disrupt the UPJ and can be easily performed robotically.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Casale P, Grady RW, Joyner BD, et al. Comparison of dismembered and nondismembered laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient. J Endourol. 2004;18:875–8.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Atug F, Woods M, Burgess SV, Castle EP, Thomas R. Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children. J Urol. 2005;174(4 Pt 1):1440–2.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Kutikov A, Nguyen M, Guzzo T, Canter D, Casale P. Robot assisted pyeloplasty in the infant-lessons learned. J Urol. 2006;176(5):2237–9. discussion 2239–40.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Casale P, Mucksavage P, Resnick M, Kim SS. Robotic ureterocalicostomy in the pediatric population. J Urol. 2008;180:2643–8.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Yeung CK, Sihoe JD, Borzi PA. Endoscopic cross-trigonal ureteral reimplantation under carbon dioxide bladder insufflation: a novel technique. J Endourol. 2005;19:295–9.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Hayn MH, Smaldone MC, Ost MC, Docimo SG. Minimally invasive treatment of vesicoureteral reflux. Urol Clin N Am. 2008;35:477–88.CrossRef

35.

Lendvay T. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic management of vesicoureteral reflux. Adv Urol. 2008;2008:732942.PubMedCentralCrossRef

36.••

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. A case-matched series comparing robotic ureteral reimplantation (both intravesical and extravesical) to open surgery. While overall success rates were similar between both techniques, robotic surgery had statistically significant benefits of shorter time for catheter drainage, fewer bladder spasms, and shorter hospital stay.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Peters CA, Woo R. Intravesical robotically assisted bilateral ureteral reimplantation. J Endourol. 2005;19(6):618–21.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Kutikov A, Guzzo TJ, Canter DJ, Casale P. Initial experience with laparoscopic transvesical ureteral reimplantation at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. J Urol. 2006;176(5):2222–5.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Kasturi S, Sehgal SS, Christman MS, Lambert SM, Casale P. Prospective long-term analysis of nerve-sparing extravesical robotic-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation. Urology. 2012;79(3):680–3.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Carmignani G, Gallucci M, Puppo P, De Stefani S, Simonato A, Maffezzini M. Video laparoscopic excision of a seminal vesicle cyst associated with ipsilateral renal agenesis. J Urol. 1995;153(2):437–9.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Christman MS, Casale P. Robot-assisted bladder diverticulectomy in the pediatric population. J Endourol. 2012;26(10):1296–300.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Robotic Surgery in Pediatric Urology
Authors: Jason P. Van Batavia
Pasquale Casale
Publication date: 01-05-2014
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Current Urology Reports / Issue 5/2014
Print ISSN: 1527-2737
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6285
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-014-0402-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Robotic Surgery in Pediatric Urology

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2014

Emerging Endoscopic Imaging Technologies for Bladder Cancer Detection

Pelvic Ultrasound Evaluation for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Prediction of Obstruction

Ureteroscopy for Treatment of Upper Urinary Tract Stones in Children: Technical Considerations

Kidney Stone Risk Following Modern Bariatric Surgery

Alternative Sexualities: Implications for the Urologist

Lessons learned from the International Renal Cell Carcinoma-Venous Thrombus Consortium (IRCC-VTC)