Cargando…

Robot-assisted pyeloplasty and laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: A comparison of single-port-plus-one and multiport surgery

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effects of various trocar placements in robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty involving children diagnosed with obstruction of the ureteropelvic junction (OUPJ). METHODS: • Laparoscopic multiport pyeloplasty (LMPY), • Laparoscopic single-port pyelopla...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Jianglong, Xu, Huihuang, Lin, Shan, He, Shaohua, Tang, Kunbin, Xiao, Zhixiang, Xu, Di
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9634126/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36340736
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fped.2022.957790
_version_ 1784824400718069760
author Chen, Jianglong
Xu, Huihuang
Lin, Shan
He, Shaohua
Tang, Kunbin
Xiao, Zhixiang
Xu, Di
author_facet Chen, Jianglong
Xu, Huihuang
Lin, Shan
He, Shaohua
Tang, Kunbin
Xiao, Zhixiang
Xu, Di
author_sort Chen, Jianglong
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effects of various trocar placements in robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty involving children diagnosed with obstruction of the ureteropelvic junction (OUPJ). METHODS: • Laparoscopic multiport pyeloplasty (LMPY), • Laparoscopic single-port pyeloplasty (LSPY), • Robotic-assisted multiport pyeloplasty (RMPY), • Robotic-assisted single-port-plus-one pyeloplasty (RSPY). Patients' characteristics as well as their perioperative and follow-up data were collected and evaluated. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the data regarding patients' characteristics. These data included the grade of hydronephrosis according to the Society of Fetal Urology (SFU grade), anterior and posterior diameter of the renal pelvis and ureter (APDRPU), and the differential degree of renal function (DRF) at following time points: preoperative, postoperative, and comparison of preoperative and postoperative. There was no difference among these groups. During surgery, the time of trocar placement, urethroplasty time, and total operative time in the robotic groups (RMPY and RSPY) were longer than those in the laparoscopic groups (LMPY and LSPY). However, the ratio of the urethroplasty time and full operative time (UT/WT) in the robotic groups (RMPY and RSPY) was lower than that in the laparoscopic groups (LMPY and LSPY) (P = 0.0075). Also, the volume of blood loss was lower in the robotic groups (RMPY and RSPY) than that in the laparoscopic groups (LMPY and LSPY), although there was no statistical difference (P = 0.11). There were, however, significant differences in hospitalization days (P < 0.0001) and parents' cosmetic satisfaction scores (P < 0.001). There were no differences in fasting time, the length of time that a ureteral catheter remained in place, or the number of postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that both robotic multiple-port and single-port-plus-one approaches are comparable, with laparoscopic multiple-port and single-port approaches equally effective in resolving OUPJ in children. Robotic and single-port-plus-one approaches may be associated with some advantages in hospitalization time and cosmetic outcomes; therefore, these approaches may be useful in urologic surgery that requires precise suturing, especially in pediatric patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9634126
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96341262022-11-05 Robot-assisted pyeloplasty and laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: A comparison of single-port-plus-one and multiport surgery Chen, Jianglong Xu, Huihuang Lin, Shan He, Shaohua Tang, Kunbin Xiao, Zhixiang Xu, Di Front Pediatr Pediatrics OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effects of various trocar placements in robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty involving children diagnosed with obstruction of the ureteropelvic junction (OUPJ). METHODS: • Laparoscopic multiport pyeloplasty (LMPY), • Laparoscopic single-port pyeloplasty (LSPY), • Robotic-assisted multiport pyeloplasty (RMPY), • Robotic-assisted single-port-plus-one pyeloplasty (RSPY). Patients' characteristics as well as their perioperative and follow-up data were collected and evaluated. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the data regarding patients' characteristics. These data included the grade of hydronephrosis according to the Society of Fetal Urology (SFU grade), anterior and posterior diameter of the renal pelvis and ureter (APDRPU), and the differential degree of renal function (DRF) at following time points: preoperative, postoperative, and comparison of preoperative and postoperative. There was no difference among these groups. During surgery, the time of trocar placement, urethroplasty time, and total operative time in the robotic groups (RMPY and RSPY) were longer than those in the laparoscopic groups (LMPY and LSPY). However, the ratio of the urethroplasty time and full operative time (UT/WT) in the robotic groups (RMPY and RSPY) was lower than that in the laparoscopic groups (LMPY and LSPY) (P = 0.0075). Also, the volume of blood loss was lower in the robotic groups (RMPY and RSPY) than that in the laparoscopic groups (LMPY and LSPY), although there was no statistical difference (P = 0.11). There were, however, significant differences in hospitalization days (P < 0.0001) and parents' cosmetic satisfaction scores (P < 0.001). There were no differences in fasting time, the length of time that a ureteral catheter remained in place, or the number of postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that both robotic multiple-port and single-port-plus-one approaches are comparable, with laparoscopic multiple-port and single-port approaches equally effective in resolving OUPJ in children. Robotic and single-port-plus-one approaches may be associated with some advantages in hospitalization time and cosmetic outcomes; therefore, these approaches may be useful in urologic surgery that requires precise suturing, especially in pediatric patients. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-10-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9634126/ /pubmed/36340736 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fped.2022.957790 Text en © 2022 Chen, Xu, Lin, He, Tang, Xiao and Xu. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Pediatrics
Chen, Jianglong
Xu, Huihuang
Lin, Shan
He, Shaohua
Tang, Kunbin
Xiao, Zhixiang
Xu, Di
Robot-assisted pyeloplasty and laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: A comparison of single-port-plus-one and multiport surgery
title Robot-assisted pyeloplasty and laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: A comparison of single-port-plus-one and multiport surgery
title_full Robot-assisted pyeloplasty and laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: A comparison of single-port-plus-one and multiport surgery
title_fullStr Robot-assisted pyeloplasty and laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: A comparison of single-port-plus-one and multiport surgery
title_full_unstemmed Robot-assisted pyeloplasty and laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: A comparison of single-port-plus-one and multiport surgery
title_short Robot-assisted pyeloplasty and laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: A comparison of single-port-plus-one and multiport surgery
title_sort robot-assisted pyeloplasty and laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: a comparison of single-port-plus-one and multiport surgery
topic Pediatrics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9634126/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36340736
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fped.2022.957790
work_keys_str_mv AT chenjianglong robotassistedpyeloplastyandlaparoscopicpyeloplastyinchildrenacomparisonofsingleportplusoneandmultiportsurgery
AT xuhuihuang robotassistedpyeloplastyandlaparoscopicpyeloplastyinchildrenacomparisonofsingleportplusoneandmultiportsurgery
AT linshan robotassistedpyeloplastyandlaparoscopicpyeloplastyinchildrenacomparisonofsingleportplusoneandmultiportsurgery
AT heshaohua robotassistedpyeloplastyandlaparoscopicpyeloplastyinchildrenacomparisonofsingleportplusoneandmultiportsurgery
AT tangkunbin robotassistedpyeloplastyandlaparoscopicpyeloplastyinchildrenacomparisonofsingleportplusoneandmultiportsurgery
AT xiaozhixiang robotassistedpyeloplastyandlaparoscopicpyeloplastyinchildrenacomparisonofsingleportplusoneandmultiportsurgery
AT xudi robotassistedpyeloplastyandlaparoscopicpyeloplastyinchildrenacomparisonofsingleportplusoneandmultiportsurgery