Safety and Efficacy of Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty Compared to Open Repair in Infants under 1 Year of Age.

Abstract

Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) use in children has increased, though many centers still favor open pyeloplasty (OP) in infants. This study aims to compare safety and efficacy of RALP and OP in infants. A single-institution, retrospective cohort study of infants <1 year of age who underwent primary RALP or OP between January 2009 and June 2020 was performed. Primary outcomes were intraoperative and 30-day complications, postoperative radiographic improvement at last clinic visit, and operative failure leading to redo pyeloplasty. Multivariable logistic regression was performed for 30-day complications to adjust for demographic variation between groups. Survival analysis was performed to compare time to diagnosis of operative failure leading to redo pyeloplasty. Among 204 patients, 121 underwent OP and 83 underwent RALP (74.5% male). RALP patients were older (median 7.2 vs 2.9 months, p <0.001) and larger (median 8.2 vs 5.9 kg, p <0.001) than OP patients. Radiographic improvement was seen in 91.1% of RALP patients and 88.8% of OP patients at last visit. Median (interquartile range) followup in months was 24.4 (10.8-50.3) for the full cohort. In adjusted analysis, the odds of a 30-day complication (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.08-2.00) was lower for RALP compared to OP, though not statistically significant. In survival analysis, there was no difference in time to diagnosis of operative failure and redo pyeloplasty between groups (p=0.65). RALP is a safe and effective alternative to OP for infants, with comparable intraoperative and 30-day complications, radiographic improvement at last followup, and risk of pyeloplasty failure.