Indian Journal of Urology Users online:379  
IJU
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 29  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 19-21

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty: A single surgeon concurrent cohort review


Department Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Rajeev Kumar
Department of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-1591.109978

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: The increasing availability of robotic devices has led to an increase in their use for procedures such as pyeloplasty, which have been conventionally performed laparoscopically or through open surgery. We perform both laparoscopic and robotic-assisted pyeloplasty routinely and have compared these techniques in a set of concurrent cohorts, operated by the same surgeon. Materials and Methods: A chart review was performed of all cases of Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) and conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty (CLP) performed by a single surgeon, from September 2006 to July 2010. The choice of procedure depended upon the availability of the robot on the given day. A lateral transperitoneal approach was used in all cases. All anastomoses were stented antegrade. A diuretic renogram was obtained in all patients between six to twelve weeks after stent removal. Success was defined as a resolution of symptoms with non-obstructive outflow on the renogram. Results: Thirty patients underwent 31 laparoscopic pyeloplasties (20 RALPs and 11 CLPs), with one patient undergoing bilateral simultaneous robotic procedures. The robotic procedures were superior in terms of shorter operating time by 20 minutes on an average. Furthermore, 35% of the robotic procedures were performed in under 90 minutes, while the minimum time taken for laparoscopy was 110 minutes. All procedures in both cohorts were successful with no complications in either group. The surgeon recorded subjective ergonomic benefits with the use of the robot. Conclusions: Robotic assistance helps decrease the operative time for laparoscopic pyeloplasty. It seems ergonomically superior for the surgeon, allowing multiple procedures in the same list. These may be important benefits in busy centers.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3118    
    Printed40    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded86    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal

 

HEALTHWARE INDIA