Abstrakt Pediatrie Březen 2011

“Paediatric computer-assisted retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy compared with open surgery.”

Anderberg, M., C. C. Kockum, et al. (2011).

Pediatric Surgery International: 1-7.


Purpose: Computer-assisted laparoscopic surgery (CALS) in children is increasingly used and has proven to be feasible and safe. However, its full potential remains unclear and clinical comparative studies hardly exist. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate our experience with CALS for performing retroperitoneal nephrectomies in children when compared with controls undergoing open surgery in terms of safety, operative time, blood loss, opoid requirements, the duration of hospital stay and complications. Children and methods: Computer-assisted retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy was undertaken in ten consecutive children, mean age at the time of surgery 6.4 (SD ± 4.5) years, and compared with a retrospectively collected control group of all other children, mean age 3.9 (SD ± 4.6) years, who underwent the same procedure by conventional open surgery between the years 2005 and 2009. The endpoint of the study was 1 month postoperatively. Results: Nephrectomies were performed in all the children and no child was excluded from the study. There was no per-operative complication in any of the groups. The median (range) operative time was 202 (128-325) and 72 (44-160) min for the CALS and open group, respectively. The blood loss was minimal (<20 ml) for all the patients. The postoperative opoid requirements did not differ. The median (range) postoperative hospital stay was 1 (1-4) and 2 (1-7) days for the CALS and the open group, respectively. One complication in the form of an urinoma appeared 5 days after surgery in the CALS group. Conclusion: Computer-assisted retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy is a safe, feasible and effective procedure in children. Even though operative times are longer the patients benefit from the lower morbidity, improved cosmetics and shorter hospitalization associated with the minimally invasive approach. © 2011 Springer-Verlag.




“Paediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic augmentation ileocystoplasty and Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy (RALIMA): feasibility of and initial experience with the University of Chicago technique.”

Gundeti, M. S., S. S. Acharya, et al. (2011).

BJU International 107(6): 962-969.


Study Type – Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4 What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add? There is no information on robotic laparoscopic approach for reconstruction of the bladder and this is the first study to find out the feasibility and technique with this approach and see if there are any outcome differences. In the short term we have seen the advantages of early recuperation and less need of analgesic medication. OBJECTIVE: * To present the first series of complete intracorporeal robotic-assisted laparoscopic augmentation ileocystoplasty and Mitrofanoff appendico-vesicostomy (RALIMA) in a paediatric population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: * From February to November 2008, six patients with neurogenic bladder secondary to spina bifida (status post corrective spine surgery) were selected to undergo RALIMA by a single surgeon (MSG) at the University of Chicago Medical Center. * Patients had constipation, day and night-time incontinence, with recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI), and failed attempts at anticholinergic therapy and clean intermittent catheterization. All had low-capacity bladders with poor compliance and high leak point pressures. * Preoperative bowel preparation was not performed. Mean follow-up is 18 months. RESULTS: * One patient required conversion to open ileal augmentation because of failure to progress and another underwent augmentation ileocystoplasty without appendico-vesicostomy. The average age of patients was 9.75 years (range 8-11 years). * Average operative time was 8.4 h (range 6-11 h). There were no intraoperative complications. One patient had a postoperative wound infection, one had a lower extremity venous thrombus, and another had temporary unilateral lower extremity paresthesia that has resolved. Three patients required revision of their stoma at the skin-level. * Perioperatively, patients only required oral analgesia for 24-36 h (excluding one patient with paralytic ileus), started on liquid diet after 7.5 hours (range 6-10 h), on regular diet after 24 h (range 12-36 h) and were discharged home within 7 days. * Postoperatively, patients demonstrated no leak on follow-up cystogram, and were catheterizing per apendico-vesicostomy (three patients by 6 weeks) or urethra (1 patient at 4 weeks). * All patients now have day and night-time continence with no UTIs, and bladder capacity of 250-450 mL. CONCLUSION: * While longer follow-up will be necessary to see if these results are durable, this series demonstrates that RALIMA is a safe, feasible and effective procedure in the short term, with the possible added benefits of reduced analgesia, shorter recovery time and improved aesthetic appearance.




“Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Ureteral Reimplantation in Children: Case Matched Comparative Study With Open Surgical Approach.”

Marchini, G. S., Y. K. Hong, et al. (2011).

Journal of Urology.


PURPOSE: Surgical treatment may be required in some patients with vesicoureteral reflux. With the recent development of robotic assistance, laparoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux has gained popularity. We sought to evaluate our initial experience with pediatric robotic assisted laparoscopic intravesical and extravesical ureteral reimplantation, and to compare outcomes with the open technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who underwent robotic assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation between 2007 and 2010. Comparisons were made with a case matched cohort of patients who underwent the open technique. The groups were compared using t tests for numerical variables and chi-square comparisons or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables. A Kaplan-Meier model was used to compare success rates. RESULTS: A total of 19 patients underwent intravesical and 20 underwent extravesical robotic assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation during the study period. They were compared to 22 patients undergoing intravesical and 17 undergoing extravesical open ureteral reimplantation. Although the robotic assisted approach was associated with a longer operative time (p <0.001), children undergoing intravesical robotic assisted reimplantation had a shorter duration of urinary catheter drainage, fewer bladder spasms and a shorter hospital stay compared to those undergoing the intravesical open technique (p <0.01). There were no significant differences in these parameters when comparing extravesical robotic assisted reimplantation to the extravesical open technique. Overall success rates were similar among patients who underwent robotic assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation and open reimplantation (p >0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation offers similar success rates to the gold standard, open ureteral reimplantation. Future large scale studies will be required to define further the costs and benefits of robotic assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation in the surgical treatment of vesicoureteral reflux.




“Long-Term Experience and Outcomes of Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children and Young Adults.”

Minnillo, B. J., J. A. S. Cruz, et al. (2011).

Journal of Urology.


Purpose: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty is one of the more common robotic assisted procedures performed in children. However, data regarding long-term experience and clinical outcomes for this procedure are limited. We evaluated the long-term outcomes in a large series of patients undergoing robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty at a teaching institution, and the effect of a collaborative program between the robotic surgeons, surgical nurses and anesthesiologists on overall operative time. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 155 patients who underwent robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty between 2002 and 2009. Operative data, including surgical approach, type of procedure, total and specific operative times and placement of ureteral stents, were determined. Postoperative outcome measurements, including duration of hospital stay, duration of Foley catheter drainage, radiological findings and any subsequent complications, were assessed. Results: Mean operative time and length of hospitalization decreased significantly by the end of the study. At a mean followup of 31.7 months the primary success rate was 96% (hydronephrosis was improved in 85% of patients and stable in 11%). The complication rate was 11%, and recurrent obstruction requiring redo robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty or open pyeloplasty developed in 3% of patients. Success rate and complication rate were unchanged during the study period. Conclusions: This study confirms that even within the confines of a pediatric urology training program successful collaboration between robotic surgeons, surgical nurses and anesthesiologists can lead to shorter operative times and hospital stays. Long-term surgical success and complication rates were comparable to open surgery. © 2011 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.




“Pediatric robot-assisted pyeloplasty.”

Peters, C. A. (2011).

Journal of Endourology 25(2): 179-185.


The emergence of robot-assisted surgical technology has permitted application of laparoscopic pyeloplasty to the pediatric age group to a much wider degree than previously possible. The challenging learning curve for conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty, particularly in infants, has hindered its widespread application. Robot-assisted pyeloplasty in children has been clearly shown to provide an equally effective, safe, and reasonably efficient means to repair ureteropelvic junction obstruction with more rapid hospital discharge and less postoperative analgesic requirements. Precise port placement, adjusted to the child’s anatomy and size, delicate anastomosis, and use of postoperative stent appear to be important elements for successful repair. The procedure has become reproducible and in some centers is exclusively used over open repair. The specific procedural steps are detailed and the potential limitations and complications are reviewed, as well as the limited available data in the literature. Copyright 2011, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.




“Pediatric Robotic Extravesical Ureteral Reimplantation: Comparison With Open Surgery.”

Smith, R. P., J. L. Oliver, et al. (2011).

Journal of Urology.


PURPOSE: Robotic assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation is becoming more widely used as an alternative to open reimplantation. To date, no direct comparison to the open approach in a similar cohort exists. We review a single surgeon experience and compare the outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation and open ureteral reimplantation in children with vesicoureteral reflux. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 25 pediatric patients (mean age 69 months, range 3 to 144) who underwent robotic assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation for unilateral or bilateral vesicoureteral reflux between February 2006 and December 2009. A total of 25 patients undergoing open cross-trigonal ureteral reimplantation (mean age 50 months, range 8 to 110) during the same period were used for comparison. All cases were performed by a single surgeon. RESULTS: There were no conversions or intraoperative complications. There was no correlation between age or weight and operative time, length of stay or total analgesia used. Mean operative time was 12% longer in the robotic group vs controls (p <0.05). Mean length of stay (33 vs 53 hours) and pain medication usage were significantly less in the robotic group (p <0.001). Time to first oral intake was not significantly different. There were 3 episodes of transient urinary retention in the robotic group, all in patients undergoing bilateral reimplantation. The overall success rate, defined as no radiographic or clinical evidence of residual reflux, was 97% for robotic assisted laparoscopy after a mean followup of 16 months, compared to 100% for open reimplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation appears to be a safe and efficacious option for repair of vesicoureteral reflux. This early series shows success rates similar to the open approach. We observed decreased length of stay and use of postoperative narcotics. These findings may serve to justify further exploration of this technology and to provide data for design of a prospective trial, although the relative value of specific reductions in morbidity will need to be defined.