PD35-09 SINGLE PORT ROBOTIC UPPER URINARY TRACT RECONSTRUCTION – RESULTS FROM A SINGLE CENTER CASE SERIES

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyTrauma/Reconstruction/Diversion: Ureter (including Pyeloplasty) and Bladder Reconstruction (including fistula), Augmentation, Substitution, Diversion I (PD35)1 Sep 2021PD35-09 SINGLE PORT ROBOTIC UPPER URINARY TRACT RECONSTRUCTION – RESULTS FROM A SINGLE CENTER CASE SERIES Graham Hale, Luca Morgantini, and Simone Crivellaro Graham HaleGraham Hale More articles by this author , Luca MorgantiniLuca Morgantini More articles by this author , and Simone CrivellaroSimone Crivellaro More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002039.09AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Reconstruction of the upper urinary tract can be challenging and complex. The introduction of minimally invasive surgical techniques has helped decrease the morbidity of these procedures. This case series seeks to assess the safety and feasibility, and report initial outcomes of a single port robotic platform (SP) for reconstruction of the upper urinary tract (RUT). METHODS: Between February 2019 and March 2021, data were collected retrospectively on all cases of SP for RUT for key outcome including patient demographic, pre, peri, and post-operative data. RESULTS: 36 surgeries on 31 patients were performed (Table 1) with mean follow up of 204 days. 8 procedures were performed to salvage previous RUT. Intra and perioperative data are summarized in Table 2. Average length of stay was 2.11 days, with 5/36 (14%) same day discharges and 12/36 (33%) on POD1.1 patient was lost to follow-up.24/30 (80%) patients were stent and symptoms free. 2 patients are awaiting stent removal. One intraoperative complication (1/36, 2.8%) was recorded (repaired sigmoid laceration : no additional intervention) and 2 patients (2/36, 5.6%) had urine leaks necessitating PCNs perioperatively. 6/35 (17.1%) surgeries failed and required reoperation: 2 received salvage ureteroplasty (with success), 2 chose stent dependent, and 2 nephrectomies for atrophic kidney, poor renal function prior on renal scan. All results summarized Table 3. CONCLUSIONS: Single port robotic reconstruction of the upper urinary tract is safe and feasible. The functional outcomes and length of stay in our short term follow up period are encouraging. Comparison studies to other robotics platforms are ongoing to assess the role of single port robotic platforms for upper urinary tract reconstruction. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e592-e593 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Graham Hale More articles by this author Luca Morgantini More articles by this author Simone Crivellaro More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...