Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 11/2018

01-11-2018

Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a single-centre experience

Authors: Thomas Charles Wood, Nicholas Raison, Oussama El-Hage, Kamran Ahmed, Declan Cahill, Benjamin J. Challacombe, Muhammad Shamim Khan, Prokar Dasgupta

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 11/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is characterised by an obstruction compromising the passage of urine from the renal pelvis into the ureter, and can be corrected by Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty (RALP). We aimed to evaluate the surgical outcomes of RALP, and examine the rates of true pain resolution following the procedure.

Methods

We retrospectively explored the records of all patients who underwent RALP between April 2005 and January 2017. Measures of success were defined as the prevention of deterioration in split renal function and resolution of obstruction, and the resolution or improvement in subjective pain levels.

Results

83 patients were included in this series. Mean patient age was 40.8 years. 38 patients had a left sided RALP, whilst 45 underwent RALP on the right. Crossing vessels were identified in 53.0% of patients. Mean operative time was 148.0 min. 68 patients had pain as their presenting feature. Following RALP, the pain resolved in 69.2% (n = 47), improved in 26.5% (n = 18), and remained the same in 4.4% (n = 3). 11.8% (n = 8) of patients required referral to other specialities for pain management. Success from a radiological perspective of cleared obstruction and arrest of deteriorating renal function was 97.6%.

Conclusions

Our individual outcomes demonstrate a high success rate regarding resolution of obstruction and preventing deterioration in renal function. We also report that a number of patients, who despite meeting the radiological criteria to undergo RALP, had alternate underlying causes for their pain symptoms. For this reason, we propose that the primary measure of success for RALP should be based on renal function and radiological outcomes, rather than the outcomes relating to pain. Both surgeons and patients should be aware that whilst RALP is a highly successful procedure, persistence of pain may be due to overlapping clinical conditions which can be managed by a multidisciplinary approach.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Bernie JE, Venkatesh R, Brown J, Gardner TA, Sundaram CP (2005) Comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty with and without robotic assistance. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 9(3):258 Bernie JE, Venkatesh R, Brown J, Gardner TA, Sundaram CP (2005) Comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty with and without robotic assistance. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 9(3):258
2.
go back to reference Canda AE (2013) Robotic pyeloplasty: step by step surgical technique. Adv Rob Autom 2:2 Canda AE (2013) Robotic pyeloplasty: step by step surgical technique. Adv Rob Autom 2:2
3.
go back to reference Shah KK, Louie M, Thaly RK, Patel VR (2007) Robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a review of the current status. Int J Med Rob Comput Assist Surg 3(1):35–40CrossRef Shah KK, Louie M, Thaly RK, Patel VR (2007) Robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a review of the current status. Int J Med Rob Comput Assist Surg 3(1):35–40CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Yohannes P, Rotariu P, Pinto P, Smith AD, Lee BR (2002) Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology 60(1):39–45CrossRef Yohannes P, Rotariu P, Pinto P, Smith AD, Lee BR (2002) Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology 60(1):39–45CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Autorino R, Eden C, El-Ghoneimi A, Guazzoni G, Buffi N, Peters CA et al (2014) Robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 65(2):430–452CrossRef Autorino R, Eden C, El-Ghoneimi A, Guazzoni G, Buffi N, Peters CA et al (2014) Robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 65(2):430–452CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Mufarrij PW, Woods M, Shah OD, Palese MA, Berger AD, Thomas R et al (2008) Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience. J Urol 180(4):1391–1396CrossRef Mufarrij PW, Woods M, Shah OD, Palese MA, Berger AD, Thomas R et al (2008) Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience. J Urol 180(4):1391–1396CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Schwentner C, Pelzer A, Neururer R, Springer B, Horninger W, Bartsch G et al (2007) Robotic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty: 5-year experience of one centre. BJU Int 100(4):880–885CrossRef Schwentner C, Pelzer A, Neururer R, Springer B, Horninger W, Bartsch G et al (2007) Robotic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty: 5-year experience of one centre. BJU Int 100(4):880–885CrossRef
8.
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(3):509–513CrossRef Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R (2002) Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology 60(3):509–513CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Sivaraman A, Leveillee RJ, Patel MB, Chauhan S, Bracho JE, Moore CR et al (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a multi-institutional experience. Urology 79(2):351–355CrossRef Sivaraman A, Leveillee RJ, Patel MB, Chauhan S, Bracho JE, Moore CR et al (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a multi-institutional experience. Urology 79(2):351–355CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Patel V (2005) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology 66(1):45–49CrossRef Patel V (2005) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology 66(1):45–49CrossRef
11.
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(7):980–983CrossRef 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(7):980–983CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Khan F, Ahmed K, Lee N, Challacombe B, Khan MS, Dasgupta P (2014) Management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults. Nat Rev Urol 11(11):629–638CrossRef Khan F, Ahmed K, Lee N, Challacombe B, Khan MS, Dasgupta P (2014) Management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults. Nat Rev Urol 11(11):629–638CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Thom MR, Haseebuddin M, Roytman TM, Benway BM, Bhayani SB, Figenshau RS (2012) Robot-assisted pyeloplasty: outcomes for primary and secondary repairs, a single institution experience. Int Braz J Urol 38(1):77–83CrossRef Thom MR, Haseebuddin M, Roytman TM, Benway BM, Bhayani SB, Figenshau RS (2012) Robot-assisted pyeloplasty: outcomes for primary and secondary repairs, a single institution experience. Int Braz J Urol 38(1):77–83CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Murphy D, Challacombe B, Elhage O, Khan MS, Dasgupta P (2008) Robotically assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. BJU Int 102(1):136–151CrossRef Murphy D, Challacombe B, Elhage O, Khan MS, Dasgupta P (2008) Robotically assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. BJU Int 102(1):136–151CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Braga LH, Pace K, DeMaria J, Lorenzo AJ (2009) 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 56(5):848–858CrossRef Braga LH, Pace K, DeMaria J, Lorenzo AJ (2009) 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 56(5):848–858CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Etafy M, Pick D, Said S, Hsueh T, Kerbl D, Mucksavage P et al (2011) Robotic pyeloplasty: the University of California-Irvine experience. J Urol 185(6):2196–2200CrossRef Etafy M, Pick D, Said S, Hsueh T, Kerbl D, Mucksavage P et al (2011) Robotic pyeloplasty: the University of California-Irvine experience. J Urol 185(6):2196–2200CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Tobis S, Venigalla S, Balakumaran K, Scosyrev E, Lloyd GL, Golijanin DJ et al (2013) Analysis of a large single-center experience with robot-assisted pyeloplasty. Int J Urol 20(2):230–234CrossRef Tobis S, Venigalla S, Balakumaran K, Scosyrev E, Lloyd GL, Golijanin DJ et al (2013) Analysis of a large single-center experience with robot-assisted pyeloplasty. Int J Urol 20(2):230–234CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a single-centre experience
Authors
Thomas Charles Wood
Nicholas Raison
Oussama El-Hage
Kamran Ahmed
Declan Cahill
Benjamin J. Challacombe
Muhammad Shamim Khan
Prokar Dasgupta
Publication date
01-11-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 11/2018
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6212-2

Other articles of this Issue 11/2018

Surgical Endoscopy 11/2018 Go to the issue