Robotic-Assisted Ureteral Re-implantation: A Case Series

Wason, Shaun; Lance, Raymond S.; Given, Robert; Malcolm, John B.

doi:10.1089/lap.2014.0051

Cited by 20 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On review of the literature we identified 17 studies ( Table 5 [66] , [67] , [68] , [69] , [70] , [71] , [72] , [73] , [74] , [75] , [76] , [77] , [78] , [79] , [80] , [81] , [82] ) evaluating distal ureteric reconstructive surgery, with institutions presenting their experience using a number of differing techniques including uretero-ureterostomy and uretero-neocystostomy (often with adjunct procedures such as Boari flap formation or Psoas hitch).…”

Section: Robot-assisted Distal Ureteric Reconstructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding the indications of robotic surgery in urology: A systematic review of the literature

Pal

Koupparis

2018

Arab Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo evaluate the recent developments in robotic urological surgery, as the introduction of robotic technology has overcome many of the difficulties of pure laparoscopic surgery enabling surgeons to perform complex minimally invasive procedures with a shorter learning curve. Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) is now offered as the standard for various surgical procedures across multiple specialities.MethodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE databases was performed to identify studies evaluating robot-assisted simple prostatectomy, salvage radical prostatectomy, surgery for urolithiasis, distal ureteric reconstruction, retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, augmentation ileocystoplasty, and artificial urinary sphincter insertion. Article titles, abstracts, and full text manuscripts were screened to identify relevant studies, which then underwent data extraction and analysis.ResultsIn all, 72 studies evaluating the above techniques were identified. Almost all studies were retrospective single-arm case series. RAS appears to be associated with reduced morbidity, less blood loss, reduced length of stay, and comparable clinical outcomes in comparison to the corresponding open procedures, whilst having a shorter operative duration and learning curve compared to the equivalent laparoscopic techniques.ConclusionEmerging data demonstrate that the breadth and complexity of urological procedures performed using the da Vinci® platform (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is continually expanding. There is a gaining consensus that RAS is producing promising surgical results in a wide range of procedures. A major limitation of the current literature is the sparsity of comparative trials evaluating these procedures.

show abstract

Section: Robot-assisted Distal Ureteric Reconstructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding the indications of robotic surgery in urology: A systematic review of the literature

Pal

Koupparis

2018

Arab Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All selected studies had a retrospective nature. From them, eight were case series [ 2 , 4 , 5 , 16 – 20 ] and four had comparative study design comparing RAL and open approaches (two articles) [ 7 , 21 ], two different RAL techniques (one article) [ 6 ], as well as RAL, laparoscopic and open surgeries (one article) [ 22 ]. Review and analysis of the last article data were performed only in RAL and open groups [ 22 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The improved intracorporeal suturing makes ureteral surgery a logical extension, based on the experience with anastomoses in a prostatectomy operation [ 4 , 5 ]. RAL is currently used in numerous urologic procedures, including ureteral reconstruction, leading to a decreased morbidity and better clinical outcomes when compared to open surgery [ 6 , 7 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Ureteral Reconstruction: а systematic review of literature

Колонтарев¹,

Kasyan²,

Pushkar³

2018

CEJU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionTo review the literature, as well as to analyze and compare available data on robot-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) surgery versus open surgery, carried out in ureteral reconstructions in terms of different surgical characteristics.Materials and methodsEligible studies, published between 1997 and July 2016, were retrieved through MEDLINE by applying predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria with the English language restriction. Publications on RAL surgeries, carried out in different ureteral reconstructions and of any study design, including case series and comparative studies, were included. The study was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement.ResultsA total of 12 retrospective studies (case series and comparative studies) met the systematic review selection criteria involving 245 RAL and 76 open ureteral surgery cases. Main indications for ureter reconstruction were strictures, tumors and injuries. The individual results of comparative studies revealed that the EBL was statistically significantly lower for RAL than for open surgery. As for operation time, length of hospital stay and follow-up time, the data was contradictory. The rate of recurrent stricture in RAL and open groups was similar: -9.0%. The meta-analysis of three comparative studies confirmed that patients lose statistically significantly less blood in RAL, compared to open surgery.ConclusionsThe analysis of limited data available shows that robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reconstruction is a safe and effective minimally invasive technique with high cure rates similar to those of the conventional open approach and, with favorable safety profile. Future well-designed randomized controlled trials are required to strengthen our findings.

show abstract

“…Certainly, most robotic series have adopted nontunnelled reimplantation, which is unsurprising as this is far less technically challenging. Therefore, in adult patients undergoing a robotic ureteric reimplantation, limited data from case series suggest the feasibility and safety of this approach [11,12]. There is a need for studies to clarify this issue.…”

Section: Evidence Acquisitionmentioning

confidence: 99%