Viana-Álvarez G, Villeda-Sandoval C, Orozco-Lara JC, Trujillo-Ortiz L, Sánchez-Aquino U, López-Maguey R

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 289-295
PDF size: 395.95 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Narrowness of the ureteropelvic junction is the most frequent cause of hydronephrosis in young adults and children. It is characterized by anatomic or functional obstruction of the urine flow from the renal pelvis to the ureter that, when untreated, conditions impaired kidney function.
Clinical case: A 22-year-old woman had recurrent urinary infection with poor treatment response for the past 2 years and left lumbar pain of 6-month progression. Computed tomography revealed right renal hypoplasia and left hydronephrosis, for which a left double-J catheter was placed. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty was performed with no complications or incidents. The patient had adequate progression and was released from the hospital two days later.
Conclusions: Robotic-assisted surgery mitigates many of the complications resulting from conventional laparoscopy thanks to its movement precision, suturing ease, and three-dimensional vision. It is also very useful when standard dismembered pyeloplasty may be sub-optimal or technically complicated.

REFERENCES

1. Sivaraman A, Leveillee RJ, Patel MB, Chauhan S, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a multi-institutional experience. Urology 2012;79(2):351-355.

2. Lee RS, Retik AB, Borer JG, Peter CA. Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol 2006;175(2):683- 687.

3. Lucas SM, Sundaram CP, Wolf JS, Leveillee RJ, Bird VG, et al. Factors that impact the outcome of minimally invasive pyeloplasty: results of the Multi-institutional Laparoscopic and Robotic Pyeloplasty Collaborative Group. J Urol 2012;187(2):522-527.

4. Chen RN, Moore RG, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Indications, technique, and long-term outcome. Urol Clin North Am 1998;25(2):323-330.

5. Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R. Anderson- Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology 2002;60:509-13.

6. Binder J, Bräutigam R, Jonas D, Bentas W. Robotic surgery in urology: fact or fantasy?. BJU international 2004;94(8):1183-1187.

7. Sung GT, Gill IS, Hsu TH. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a pilot study. Urology 1999;53:1099.

8. Khan N, Abboudi H, Khan MS, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K. Measuring the surgical ‘learning curve’: methods, variables and competency. BJU Int 2014;113(3):504-508.

9. Varda BK, Johnson EK, Clark C, Chung BI, et al. National trends of perioperative outcomes and costs for open, laparoscopic and robotic pediatric population. J Urol 2014;191(4):1090-6.

10. Kommu SS, Murphy D, Patel SP. Robot assisted pyeloplasty vs. laparoscopic pyeloplastya-preliminary cost comparison in the United Kingdom setting. J Endourol, 2006;20S1:MP19-04.

11. Mufarrij PW, Woods M, Shah OD, Palese MA, et al. Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience. J Urol 2008;180(4):1391-1396.