Robotic-assisted laparoscopic approaches to the ureter: Pyeloplasty and ureteral reimplantation

Introduction and Objectives: The benefits of robotic surgery when compared to standard laparoscopy have been well established, especially when it comes to reconstructive procedures. The application of robotic technology to laparoscopic pyeloplasty has reduced the steep learning curve associated with the procedure. Consequently, this has allowed surgeons who are less experienced with laparoscopy to offer this treatment to their patients, instead of referring them to "centers of excellence". Robotic pyeloplasty has also proved useful for repairing secondary UPJO, a procedure which is considered extremely difficult using a conventional laparoscopic approach. Finally, the pursuit of "scarless" surgery has seen the development of laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) procedures. The application of robotics to LESS (R-LESS) has also reduced the difficulty in performing conventional LESS pyeloplasty. Herein we present a literature review with regards to robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. We also discuss the benefits of robotic surgery with regards to reconstruction of the lower urinary tract. Materials and Methods: A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed to identify relevant studies. There were no time restrictions applied to the search, but only studies in English were included. We utilized the following search terms: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction and laparoscopy; laparoscopic pyeloplasty; robotic pyeloplasty; robotic ureteric reimplantation; robotic ureteroneocystostomy; robotic boari flap; robotic psoas hitch. Results: There has been considerable experience in the literature with robotic pyeloplasty. Unfortunately, no prospective randomized studies have been conducted, however there are a number of meta analyses and systematic reviews. While there are no clear benefits when it comes to surgical and functional outcomes when compared to standard laparoscopic pyeloplasty, it is clear that robotics makes the operation easier to perform. There is also a benefit to the robotic approach when performing a redo-pyeloplasty. Robotic pyeloplasty has also been applied to the pediatric population, and there may be a benefit in older children while in very young patients, retroperitoneal open pyeloplasty is still the gold standard. In the field of single incision surgery R-LESS is technically easier to perform than conventional LESS. However, the design of the current robotic platform is not completely suited for this application, limiting its utility and often requiring a larger incision. Optimized R-LESS specific technology is awaited. What is clear, from a number of analyses, is that robotic pyeloplasty is considerably more expensive than the laparoscopic approach, largely due to costs of instrumentation and the capital expense of the robot. Until cheaper robotic technology is available, this technique will continue to be expensive, and a cost-benefit analysis must be undertaken by each hospital planning to undertake this surgery. Finally, the benefits of upper tract reconstruction apply equally to the lower tract although there is considerably less experience. However, there have been a number of studies demonstrating the technical feasibility of ureteral reimplantation. Conclusions: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty is gaining popularity, likely due to the shorter learning curve, greater surgeon comfort, and easier intracorporeal suturing. This has allowed more surgeons to perform the procedure, improving accessibility. Robotic technology is also beneficial in the field of LESS. Nevertheless, the procedure still is not as cost-effective as the conventional laparoscopic approach, and until more affordable robotic technology is available, it will not be universally offered

Robotic single port surgery: Current status and future considerations

Introduction and Objectives: It has been established that robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery has several advantages when compared with standard laparoscopic surgery. Optics, ergonomics, dexterity and precision are all enhanced with the use of a robotic platform. For these reasons, it was postulated that the application of robotics to laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) could overcome some of the constraints seen with the conventional laparoscopic approach. Issues such as instrument clashing, inability to achieve effective triangulation for dissection and difficulties with intracorporeal suturing have limited the widespread adoption of conventional LESS. The application of robotics has eliminated many of the constraints experienced with conventional LESS; however, challenges still remain. Materials and Methods: A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed to identify relevant studies. There were no time restrictions applied to the search, but only studies in English were included. We used the following search terms: Robotic single site surgery, robotic single port surgery, robotic single incision surgery and robotic laparoendoscopic single site surgery. Results: A number of centers have published their experience with robotic-laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (R-LESS); however, no prospective studies exist. What is clear is that R-LESS minimizes several of the difficulties experienced with conventional LESS, including intracorporeal suturing and triangulation during dissection. Outcomes are comparable to standard robotic surgery, with a trend toward improved cosmesis and reduced pain. However, a significant advantage with regard to these two factors has yet to be demonstrated. Conclusions: R-LESS is technically feasible and the benefits of robotic surgery eliminate many of the challenges seen with conventional LESS. However, despite the advantages of the robotic platform, R-LESS is not free of challenges. Instrument clashing remains an issue due to the bulky profile of the current robotic system. Other issues include lack of space for the assistant at the bedside, inability to incorporate the 4 th robotic arm for retraction and difficulties with triangulation. Although solutions for some of these issues are currently under development, R-LESS is still very much in its infancy

Laparoscopic vs Percutaneous Cryoablation for the Small Renal Mass: 15-Year Experience at a Single Center

Objective To analyze our 15-year experience with small renal masses ablation and present oncologic and functional outcomes of laparoscopic cryoablation (LCA) and percutaneous cryoablation (PCA). Materials and Methods We identified patients who underwent LCA (n = 275) or PCA (n = 137) for small renal masses between 1997 and 2012. Differences in overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were analyzed using a log-rank test. Cox proportional hazard ratios model was used to determine factors that predicted OS. Fit proportional hazard risk ratios were also calculated to determine if there were any factors that affected tumor recurrence. Results Tumor sizes were equal between the 2 groups; however, tumors in the PCA group were more complex. The overall (7.27% and 7.29%) and major complications (0.7% and 3.6%) were similar. The estimated probability of 5-year OS for LCA and PCA was 89% and 82%, respectively. The estimated probability of the 5-year RFS for LCA and PCA was 79% and 80%, respectively. Heart disease (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-3.41; P =.001) and history of disease recurrence (hazard ratio, 2.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.60-3.86; P =.001; P <.0001) were predictors of death. The median follow-up time for the LCA group (4.41 years [1.67-6.91 years]) was longer than the PCA group (3.15 years [1.37-4.08 years]; P =.0001). Conclusion We found no significant difference in OS or RFS at 5 years between the 2 groups. Tumor size and anterior location affected local recurrence rates, and these factors should be taken into consideration when choosing the appropriate treatment plan. RENAL nephrometry score or type of cryoablation was not associated with tumor recurrence

Robotic partial nephrectomy with intracorporeal renal hypothermia using ice slush

Objective To outline our technique for intracorporeal cooling with ice slush during robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN), with real-time parenchymal temperature monitoring. Materials and Methods Eleven consecutive patients with enhancing solid renal masses suitable for treatment with RPN between September 2013 and January 2014 were included in the analysis. Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. Preoperative patient characteristics, intraoperative surgical parameters including patient body temperature and ipsilateral kidney temperature with real-time monitoring, and short-term functional outcomes were analyzed. Results Median age was 55 years (range, 39-75 years) and American Society of Anesthesiologists score was 3 (range, 2-4). Median tumor size was 4 cm (range, 2.3-7.1) and RENAL nephrometry score was 9 (range, 5-11). One patient had a solitary kidney. During cooling, the lowest median renal parenchymal temperature was 17.05°C (range, 11°C-26°C) and cold ischemia time was 27.17 minutes (range, 18-49 minutes). Median time to latest postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate was 12 days (range, 2-30 days). Median glomerular filtration rate preservation was 81% (range, 47.9%-126%). There was one positive margin. There were no postoperative complications, and no patients experienced a prolonged ileus. The limitations of this study include a small number of patients and short-term follow-up. Conclusion RPN with renal hypothermia using intracorporeal ice slush is technically feasible. Our simplified method of introducing the ice slush was free of complications and highly reproducible. The use of a needle temperature probe allowed us to monitor in real time cooling of the renal parenchyma. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved

Step-by-Step robotic heminephrectomy for duplicated renal collecting system

Introduction: A duplicated renal collecting system is a relatively common congenital anomaly rarely presenting in adults. Aim: In this video we demonstrate our step-by-step technique of Robotic heminephrectomy in a patient with non-functioning upper pole moiety. Materials and Methods: Following cystoscopy and ureteral catheter insertion the patient was placed in 600 modified flank position with the ipsilateral arm positioned at the side of the patient. A straight-line, three arm robotic port configuration was employed. The robot was docked at a 90-degree angle, perpendicular to the patient. Following mobilization the colon and identifying both ureters of the duplicated system, the ureters were followed cephalically toward, hilar vessels where the hilar anatomy was identified. The nonfunctioning pole vasculature was ligated using hem-o-lok clips. The ureter was sharply divided and the proximal ureteral stump was passed posterior the renal hilum. Ureteral stump was used as for retraction and heminephrectomy is completed along the line demarcating the upper and lower pole moieties. Renorrhaphy was performed using 0-Vicryl suture with a CT-1 needle. The nonfunctioning pole ureter was then dissected caudally toward the bladder hiatus, ligated using clips, and transected. Results: The operating time was 240 minutes and blood loss was 100 cc. There was no complication post-operatively. Conclusions: Wrist articulation and degree of freedom offered by robotic platform facilitates successful performance of minimally invasive heminephrectomy in the setting of an atrophic and symptomatic renal segment

Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy for â\u89¥7 cm Renal Masses: A Comparative Outcome Analysis

Objective To present our robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) experience for renal masses â\u89¥7 cm and compare the surgical outcomes in this cohort with those obtained for small (â\u89¤4 cm) renal masses. Materials and Methods We retrospectively reviewed our institutional review board-approved RPN database and identified patients undergoing RPN for tumors â\u89¥7 cm. Surgical technique, renal function, oncologic, and pathologic data were analyzed and compared with the RPN for renal masses â\u89¤4 cm. Results Overall, 441 patients were identified for the purpose of this study, including 29 cases and 412 controls. Median operative time (200 vs 180 min; P =.005), warm ischemia time (26.5 vs 19 min; P <.001), and estimated blood loss (250 mL [353] vs 150 mL [150]; P <.001) were significantly lower in the control group. Postoperative complications were significantly higher in the case group (37.9% vs 15.8%; P =.005). However, the percentages of major complications (Clavien grade â\u89¥III) were comparable (18.2% vs 17%; P =.57 for cases and controls respectively). Postoperative blood transfusion was higher for larger tumor group (24.1% vs 4.1%; P <.001). Positive margins were similar between groups (5.9% vs 3.3%; P =.45 for cases and controls respectively). There was no difference in estimated glomerular filtration rate decline between the two groups (12.2% vs 15.8% decline; P =.98). Conclusion RPN represents a feasible and safe nephron-sparing surgery approach for highly selected (mostly exophytic growth pattern, polar location, and likelihood of benign histology) renal masses â\u89¥7 cm in diameter. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved

Urine leak in minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: Analysis of risk factors and role of intraoperative ureteral catheterization

Purpose: To investigate risk factors for urine leak in patients undergoing minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) and to determine the role of intraoperative ureteral catheterization in preventing this postoperative complication. Materials and Methods: MIPN procedures done from September 1999 to July 2012 at our Center were reviewed from our IRB-approved database. Patient and tumor characteristics, operative techniques and outcomes were analyzed. Patients with evidence of urine leak were identified. Outcomes were compared between patients with preoperative ureteral catheterization (C-group) and those without (NC-group). Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify factors predicting postoperative urine leak. Results: A total of 1,019 cases were included (452 robotic partial nephrectomy cases and 567 laparoscopic partial nephrectomy cases). Five hundred twenty eight patients (51.8%) were in the C-group, whereas 491 of them (48.2%) in the NC-group. Urine leak occurred in 31(3%) cases, 4.6% in the C-group and 1.4% in the NC-group (p<0.001). Tumors in NC-group had significantly higher RENAL score, shorter operative and warm ischemic times. On multivariable analysis, tumor proximity to collecting system (OR=9.2; p<0.01), surgeon's early operative experience (OR=7.8; p<0.01) and preoperative moderate to severe CKD (OR=3.1; p<0.01) significantly increased the odds of the occurrence of a postoperative urine leak. Conclusion: Clinically significant urine leak after MIPN in a high volume institution setting is uncommon. This event is more likely to occur in cases of renal masses that are close to the collecting system, in patients with preoperative CKD and when operating surgeon is still in the learning curve for the procedure. Our findings suggest that routine intraoperative ureteral catheterization during MIPN does not reduce the probability of postoperative urine leak. In addition, it adds to the overall operative time