Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Tubeless outpatient robotic upper urinary tract reconstruction in the pediatric population: short-term assessment of safety

Tubeless outpatient robotic upper urinary tract reconstruction in the pediatric population:... Robotic upper urinary tract reconstruction (UUTR) has been widely utilized for surgical management of congenital obstruction. To further reduce morbidity and simplify postoperative care, outpatient robotic pyeloplasty (RP) and robotic ureteroureterostomy (RUU) were performed without ureteral stents, drains, or urethral catheters. The aim of the study was to assess the safety of performing tubeless robotic UUTR as an outpatient procedure. A retrospective review was performed for patients who underwent outpatient tubeless RP and RUU between July 2015 and January 2017. All procedures were primary interventions. No ureteral stents, drains, or urethral catheters were utilized. No regional blocks were utilized. Patients were discharged from the post anesthesia care unit as a scheduled outpatient procedure without an extended stay. Primary outcomes included 30-day complications, emergency room (ER) visits, and readmissions. A total of 19 patients (14 male, 5 female) were identified (RP = 17, RUU = 3), including one patient who underwent staged bilateral RP. Median age was 21.5 months (range 3–220). Median weight was 11.5 kg (range 6–89). Median operative time was 167 min (range 108–249), defined as skin incision to closure. No 30-day complications, ER visits, or readmissions were observed for any patient. The study concludes that pediatric tubeless outpatient robotic UUTR is safe. Further evaluation is needed to assess this approach on a larger scale, as well as assessing the long-term outcomes of tubeless reconstruction. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Robotic Surgery Springer Journals

Tubeless outpatient robotic upper urinary tract reconstruction in the pediatric population: short-term assessment of safety

Download PDF
4 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/tubeless-outpatient-robotic-upper-urinary-tract-reconstruction-in-the-rYChRSVRP0
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by Springer-Verlag London Ltd.
Subject
Medicine & Public Health; Minimally Invasive Surgery; Surgery; Urology
ISSN
1863-2483
eISSN
1863-2491
DOI
10.1007/s11701-017-0722-0
pmid
28639117
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Robotic upper urinary tract reconstruction (UUTR) has been widely utilized for surgical management of congenital obstruction. To further reduce morbidity and simplify postoperative care, outpatient robotic pyeloplasty (RP) and robotic ureteroureterostomy (RUU) were performed without ureteral stents, drains, or urethral catheters. The aim of the study was to assess the safety of performing tubeless robotic UUTR as an outpatient procedure. A retrospective review was performed for patients who underwent outpatient tubeless RP and RUU between July 2015 and January 2017. All procedures were primary interventions. No ureteral stents, drains, or urethral catheters were utilized. No regional blocks were utilized. Patients were discharged from the post anesthesia care unit as a scheduled outpatient procedure without an extended stay. Primary outcomes included 30-day complications, emergency room (ER) visits, and readmissions. A total of 19 patients (14 male, 5 female) were identified (RP = 17, RUU = 3), including one patient who underwent staged bilateral RP. Median age was 21.5 months (range 3–220). Median weight was 11.5 kg (range 6–89). Median operative time was 167 min (range 108–249), defined as skin incision to closure. No 30-day complications, ER visits, or readmissions were observed for any patient. The study concludes that pediatric tubeless outpatient robotic UUTR is safe. Further evaluation is needed to assess this approach on a larger scale, as well as assessing the long-term outcomes of tubeless reconstruction.

Journal

Journal of Robotic Surgery – Springer Journals

Published: Jun 21, 2017

References

  • Society for Fetal Urology Consensus statement on the evaluation and management of antenatal hydronephrosis
    Nguyen, HT; Herdon, CD; Cooper, C; Gatti, J; Kirsch, A; Kokorowski, P; Lee, R; Perez-Brayfield, M; Metcalfe, P; Yerkes, E; Cendron, M; Campbell, JB
  • Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: effect on operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications and success rate
    Braga, LHP; Pace, K; DeMaria, J; Lorenzo, AJ
  • Stentless pediatric robotic pyeloplasty
    Rodriguez, AR; Rich, MA; Swana, HS
  • The risk factors and clinical significance of acute postoperative complications after unstented pediatric pyeloplasty: a single surgeon’s experience
    Lee, YS; Lee, CN; Kim, MU; Jang, WS; Lee, H; Im, YJ; Han, SW
  • Is peri-operative urethral catheter drainage enough? The case for stentless pediatric robotic pyeloplasty
    Silva, MV; Levy, AC; Finkelstein, JB; Batavia, JP; Casale, P
  • Outpatient laparoscopic appendectomy should be the standard of care for uncomplicated appendicitis
    Frazee, RC; Abernathy, SW; Davis, M; Hendricks, JC; Isbell, TV; Regner, JL; Smith, RW
  • A prospective study of safe and satisfaction with same-day discharge after laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis
    Alkhoury, F; Burnweit, C; Malvezzi, L; Knight, C; Diana, J; Pasaron, R; Mora, J; Nazarey, P; Aserlind, A; Stylianos, S
  • Is outpatient robotic pyeloplasty feasible?
    Finkelstein, J; Batavia, JP; Casale, P
  • Contemporary national comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pediatric pyeloplasty
    Liu, DB; Ellimoottil, C; Flum, AS; Casey, JT; Gong, EM
  • Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery
    Lee, RS; Retik, AB; Borer, JG; Peters, CA
  • Retrocaval ureter: a case diagnosed pre-operatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation
    Anderson, JC; Hynes, W
  • The indwelling ureteric stent: a “friendly” procedure with unfriendly high morbidity
    Richter, S; Ringel, A; Shalev, M; Nissenkorn, I
  • Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility
    Joshi, HB; Stainthrope, A; MacDonagh, RP; Keeley, FX; Timoney, AG; Barry, MJ
  • Dexterity enhancement with robotic surgery
    Moorthy, K; Munz, Y; Dosis, A; Hernandez, J; Martin, S; Bello, F; Rockall, T; Darzi, A
  • Global minimally invasive pyeloplasty study in children: results from the Pediatric Urology Expert Group of the European Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists working party
    Silay, MS; Spinoit, AF; Undre, S; Fiala, V; Tandogdu, Z; Garmanova, T; Guttilla, A; Sancaktutar, AA; Haid, B; Waldert, M; Goyal, A; Serefoglu, EC; Baldassaree, E; Manzoni, G; Radford, A; Subramaniam, R; Cherian, A; Hoebeke, P; Jacobs, M; Rocco, B; Yuriy, R; Zattoni, F; Kocvara, R; Koh, CJ
  • Psychological responses of children to hospitalization
    Sipowicz, RR; Vernon, DTA