medigraphic.com
ISSN 0301-696X (Impreso)
Órgano de difusión del Servicio de Sanidad Militar y del Colegio Nacional de Médicos Militares

2018, Número 5-6

Siguiente >>

Rev Sanid Milit Mex 2018; 72 (5-6)


Cirugía urológica robótica. Primera serie pediátrica prospectiva en Latinoamérica

Garibay GF, Navarrete AM, Castillo NJC, García GFM, Sánchez AJA

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 39
Paginas: 281-288
Archivo PDF: 271.24 Kb.


RESUMEN

Introducción: El objetivo es presentar la primera serie prospectiva de cirugía urológica robótica en niños en Latinoamérica. Material y métodos: Estudio prospectivo, analítico, descriptivo, de los casos pediátricos registrados en forma prospectiva que acudieron a cirugía robótica urológica (sistema da Vinci) del 23 de marzo de 2015 al 20 de abril de 2016. Resultados: Se realizaron 38 cirugías en 30 pacientes con una edad promedio de 6.6 años (cuatro meses -15 años), 20 masculinos y 10 femeninos, con rango de peso de 7.5 a 60 kg, talla de 55 a 180 cm. Fueron 11 nefrectomías, 11 pieloplastias, nueve uréteres reimplantados en seis pacientes, cuatro varicocelectomías, una heminefrectomía y una liberación de obstrucción ureteropiélica extrínseca. Hubo una complicación postoperatoria (2.6%) y una conversión (2.6%). El tiempo de cirugía de consola (promedio = 150 min) y la estancia hospitalaria (promedio = 2.5 días) fueron similares a lo reportado en la literatura. Se les dio un seguimiento promedio de siete meses (1-13), con evolución satisfactoria. No hubo mortalidad. Discusión: La presente serie es la primera en México y Latinoamérica. Nuestros resultados son satisfactorios y evidencian, en comparación con lo publicado en la literatura internacional, que la cirugía robótica en pediatría es factible y segura.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Bansal D, Defoor WR Jr., Reddy PP, Minevich EA, Noh PH. Complications of robotic surgery in pediatric urology: a single institution experience. Urology. 2013; 82: 917-921.

  2. Arlen AM, Kirsch AJ. Recent developments in the use of robotic technology in pediatric urology. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2016; 13 (2): 171-178.

  3. Walliczek-Dworschak, Mandapathil, Förtsch. Structured training on the da Vinci Skills Simulator leads to improvement in technical performance of robotic novices. Clin Otolaryngol. 2016; doi: 10.1111/coa.12666. [Epub ahead of print].

  4. Avery DI, Herbst KW, Lendvay TS. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: multi-institutional experience in infants. J Pediatr Urol. 2015; 11 (3): 139.e1-5.

  5. Ganpule AP, Sripathi V. How small is small enough? Role of robotics in paediatric urology. J Minim Access Surg. 2015; 11 (1): 45-49.

  6. Meehan JJ. Robotic surgery in small children: is there room for this? J Laparoendosc Adv S. 2009; 19: 707-712.

  7. Maseo S, Reza M, Mayol JA et al. Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2010; 252: 254-262.

  8. Camps JI. The use of robotics in pediatric surgery: my initial experience. Pediatr Surg Int. 2011; 27: 991-996.

  9. 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: 683-687.

  10. Cundy TP, Shetty K, Clark J, Chang TP, Sriskandarajah K, Gattas NE et al. The first decade of robotic surgery in children. J Pediatr Surg. 2013; 48 (4): 858-865.

  11. Gundeti MS. Pediatric robotic and reconstructive urology: a comprehensive guide. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2012 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.UK. 2012, pp. 3-9.

  12. Van Batavia JP, Casale P. Robotic surgery in pediatric urology. Curr Urol Rep. 2014; 15 (5): 402.

  13. Orvieto MA, Large M, Gundeti MS. Robotic paediatric urology. BJU Int. 2012; 110: 2-13.

  14. Orvieto MA, Gundeti MS. Complex robotic reconstructive surgical procedures in children with urologic abnormalities. Curr Opin Urol. 2011; 21: 314-321.

  15. Famakinwa O, Gundeti MS. Robotic assisted laparoscopic Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy (RALMA). Curr Urol Rep. 2013; 14: 41-45.

  16. Nguyen HT, Passerotti CC, Penna FJ et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy: preliminary experience in a pediatric population. J Urol. 2009; 182: 1528-1534.

  17. Bagrodia A, Gargollo P. Robot-assisted bladder neck reconstruction, bladder neck sling, and appendicovesicostomy in children: description of technique and initial results. J Endourol. 2011; 25: 1299-1305.

  18. Volfson IA, Munver R, Esposito M et al. Robot assisted urologic surgery: safety and feasibility in the pediatric population. J Endourol. 2007; 21: 1315-1318.

  19. Olsen LH, Rawashdeh YF, Jorgensen TM. Pediatric robot assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty: a 5-year experience. J Urol. 2007; 178: 2137-2141.

  20. Singh P, Dogra PN, Kumar R, Gupta NP, Nayak B, Seth A. Outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: a single center experience. J Endourol. 2012; 26: 249-253.

  21. Minnillo BJ, Cruz JA, Sayao RH, Passerotti CC, Houck CS, Meier PM et al. Long-term experience and outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children and young adults. J Urol. 2011; 185: 1455-1460.

  22. Smaldone MC, Sweeney DD, Ost MC, Docimo SG. Laparoscopy in paediatric urology: present status. BJU Int. 2007; 100 (1): 143-150.

  23. Passerotti C, Peters CA. Pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopy: a description of the principle procedures. Scientific World Journal. 2006; 6: 2581-2588.

  24. Casale P, Kojima Y. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery in pediatric urology: an update. Scand J Surg. 2009; 98 (2): 110-119.

  25. 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 (5): 1144-1147; discussion 1147.

  26. Gundeti MS, Acharya SS, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL. Paediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic augmentation ileocystoplasty and Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy (RALIMA): Feasibility of and initial experience with the University of Chicago technique. BJU Int. 2011; 107: 962-969.

  27. Infobae América. 22 febrero 2014 [Consultado 2016 enero 20]. [Internet] Disponible en: http://www.infobae.com/2013/02/22/1066966-colombia-realizan-la-primera-cirugia-robotica-latinoamerica

  28. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004; 240 (2): 205-213.

  29. Cundy TP, Gattas NE, White AD, Najmaldin AS. Learning curve evaluation using cumulative summation analysis-a clinical example of pediatric robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Pediatr Surg. 2015; 50: 1368-1373.

  30. Kutikov A, Nguyen M, Guzzo T, Canter D, Casale P. Robot assisted pyeloplasty in the infant-lessons learned. J Urol. 2006; 176: 2237-2239.

  31. Najmaldin A, Antao B. Early experience of tele-robotic surgery in children. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg. 2007; 3: 199-202.

  32. Riachy E, Cost NG, Defoor WR, Reddy PP, Minevich EA, Noh PH. Standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a comparative single institution study. J Urol. 2013; 189 (1): 283-287.

  33. Casale P, Patel RP, Kolon TF (2008) Nerve sparing robotic extravesical ureteral reimplantation. J Urol. 2008; 179 (5): 1987-1989.

  34. Marchini GS, Hong YK, Minnillo BJ, Diamond DA, Houck CS, Meier PM et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation in children: Case matched comparative study with open surgical approach. J Urol. 2011; 185: 1870-1875.

  35. Smith RP, Oliver JL, Peters CA. Pediatric robotic extravesical ureteral reimplantation: Comparison with open surgery. J Urol. 2011; 185: 1876-1881.

  36. Chalmers D, Herbst K, Kim C. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation: an initial experience. J Pediatr Urol. 2012; 8 (3): 268-271.

  37. Kasturi S et al. Prospective long-term analysis of nerve-sparing extravesical robotic-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation. Urology. 2012; 79 (3): 680-668.

  38. Akhavan A, Avery D, Lendvay TS. Robot assisted extravesical ureteral reimplantation: outcomes and conclusions from 78 ureters. J Pediatr Urol. 2014: S1477-S5131.

  39. Tedesco G, Faggiano FC, Leo E, Derrico P, Ritrovato M. A comparative cost analysis of robotic-assisted surgery versus laparoscopic surgery and open surgery: the necessity of investing knowledgeably. Surg Endosc. 2016; [Epub ahead of print]. http:// dx.doi.org./10.1007/s00464-016-4852-7




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com