Retroperitoneoscopic Pyeloplasty for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in Children: Value of Robotic Assistance

Abstract

AimRetroperitoneal pyeloplasty (RP) for pediatric ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) performed using retroperitoneoscopy (retro-RP) or robotic assistance (robo-RP) were compared. MethodsAll subjects were Japanese, matched for age, weight, and RP diameters. All RP were performed in the lateral decubitus position at a single institute by the same team using identical protocols. Five independent surgeons were asked to score intraoperative video recordings for perceived difficulty of suturing (DOS; 5 = impossible; 4 = difficult; 3 = tedious; 2 = slow; 1 = easy) and rank RP as +1 if robo-RP appeared to be superior, 0 if they appeared to be the same, and −1 if robo-RP appeared to be inferior. ResultsRobo-RP performed 2018-2022 (n = 22) were matched with retro-RP performed 2011-2019 (n = 34). Mean overall operative times were similar (robo-RP: 305.2 ± 57.8 min versus retro-RP: 340.0 ± 117.9 min; p = 0.19), but securing the larger retroperitoneal space required for robo-RP took significantly longer; 50.8 ± 13.9 min versus 24.3 ± 9.6 min; p < 0.0001. Total anastomotic time (TAT) and TAT per suture were both significantly shorter for robo-RP (p < 0.0001). The coefficient of variation for time taken to place one suture was smaller for robo-RP than for retro-RP. DOS was lower for robo-RP with less variance (p < 0.01). Robo-RP had shorter drainage tube insertion, ambulated quicker postoperatively, and shorter hospitalization. Retro-RP had anastomotic complications; leaks (n = 2) and strictures (n = 2, requiring conventional open re-pyeloplasty). Robo-RP had no anastomotic complications and was ranked +1 unanimously. ConclusionsThe RP anastomosis was quicker with less complications and more precise with robotic assistance in matched patients under similar circumstances. Should RP be indicated, robo-RP is recommended. Level of evidenceIII.