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

2018, Number 5-6

Next >>

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

Robotic surgery in urology. First prospective pediatric case series in Latin America

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

Language: Spanish
References: 39
Page: 281-288
PDF size: 271.24 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: To report the first prospective case series of pediatric robotic urology procedures in Latin America. Material and methods: A prospective, descriptive, analytic study was performed of all children who underwent robot-assisted pediatric urology surgery (da Vinci system) from March 23, 2015 to April 20, 2016. Results: 38 robotic procedures were done in 30 patients. Mean age was 6.6 y (4 mo-15 yo). 20 males and 10 females. Weight range: 7.5 to 60 kg, height range: 55 to 180 cm. Eleven nephrectomies, 11 pyeloplasties, nine ureteral reimplantations in six patients, four varicocelectomies, one partial nephrectomy, one release of ureteropelvic junction extrinsic obstruction were performed. There was one postoperative complication (2.6%) and one conversion (2.6%). Mean robotic console time (mean = 150 min) and hospital stay (mean =2.5 days) were similar to those reported in the literature. The mean follow up was of seven months (1-13), with satisfactory evolution and no mortality. Discussion: The present paper represents the first pediatric case series in Mexico and Latin America. Our results are satisfactory and reveal that pediatric robotic urology procedures are feasible and safely performed, similar to what has been previously reported in the international literature.


REFERENCES

  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