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

European Urology

Volumn 56, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 848-858

  Braga, Luis H P ^a   Pace, Kenneth ^b   DeMaria, Jorge ^a   Lorenzo, Armando J ^b  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Complication; Laparoscopy; Operative time; Outcome; Pyeloplasty; Robot; Ureteropelvic junction obstruction

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; HOSPITAL READMISSION; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; MEDLINE; META ANALYSIS; OPERATION DURATION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PYELOPLASTY; ROBOTICS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URETEROPELVIC JUNCTION OBSTRUCTION; URINE INCONTINENCE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CHILD; HUMANS; KIDNEY PELVIS; LAPAROSCOPY; LENGTH OF STAY; MIDDLE AGED; ODDS RATIO; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; ROBOTICS; SURGERY, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URETERAL OBSTRUCTION; URINARY INCONTINENCE; UROLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 70349278628     PISSN: 03022838     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.03.063     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Schuessler W.W., Grune M.T., Tecuanhuey L.V., and Preminger G.M. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 150 (1993) 1795-1799
2. Adeyoju A.B., Hrouda D., and Gill I.S. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first decade. BJU Int 94 (2004) 264-267
3. El-Shazly M.A., Moon D.A., and Eden C.G. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: status and review of literature. J Endourol 21 (2007) 673-678
4. Winfield H.N. Management of adult ureteropelvic junction obstruction-is it time for a new gold standard?. J Urol 176 (2006) 866-867
5. Tan B.J., Rastinehad A.R., Marcovich R., Smith A.D., and Lee B.R. Trends in ureteropelvic junction obstruction management among urologists in the United States. Urology 65 (2005) 260-264
6. Vögeli T.A., Burchardt M., Fornara P., Rassweiler J., Sulser T., and Laparoscopic Working Group of the German Urological Association. Current laparoscopic practice patterns in urology: results of a survey among urologists in Germany and Switzerland. Eur Urol 42 (2002) 441-446
7. Eden C.G. Minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a critical analysis of results. Eur Urol 52 (2007) 983-989
8. Sung G.T., and Gill I.S. Robotic laparoscopic surgery: a comparison of the da Vinci and Zeus systems. Urology 58 (2001) 893-898
9. Duchene D.A., Moinzadeh A., Gill I.S., Clayman R.V., and Winfield H.N. Survey of residency training in laparoscopic and robotic surgery. J Urol 176 (2006) 2158-2166
10. Rozet F., Jaffe J., Braud G., et al. A direct comparison of robotic assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single institution experience. J Urol 178 (2007) 478-482
11. Bhayani S.B., Link R.E., Varkarakis J.M., and Kavoussi L.R. Complete daVinci versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty: cost analysis. J Endourol 19 (2005) 327-332
12. Link R.E., Bhayani S.B., and Kavoussi L.R. A prospective comparison of robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Ann Surg 243 (2006) 486-491
13. Atug F., Burgess S., Mendez-Torres F., Castle E., and Thomas R. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: comparing daVinci robotic to classic laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Eur Urol Suppl 4 3 (2005) 196
14. Bernie J.E., Venkatesh R., Brown J., Gardner T.A., and Sundaram C.P. Comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty with and without robotic assistance. JSLS 9 (2005) 258-261
15. Franco I., Dyer L.L., and Zelkovic P. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient: hand sewn anastomosis versus robotic assisted anastomosis-is there a difference?. J Urol 178 (2007) 1483-1486
16. Gettman M.T., Peschel R., Neururer R., and Bartsch G. A comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed with the daVinci robotic system versus standard laparoscopic techniques: initial clinical results. Eur Urol 42 (2002) 453-458
17. Kim S., Canter D., Leone N., Patel R., and Casale P. A comparative study between laparoscopic and robotically assisted pyeloplasty in the pediatric population. J Urol 179 (2008) 357
18. Munver R., Del Pizzo J.J., Sosa R.E., and Poppas D.P. Minimally invasive surgical management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 13 (2003) 367-384
19. Rose K., Khan S., and Dasgupta P. The current status of robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Int J Clin Pract 60 (2006) 6-8
20. Weise E.S., and Winfield H.N. Robotic computer-assisted pyeloplasty versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 20 (2006) 813-819
21. Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Health Research Institute Web site. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm. Accessed September 28, 2008.
22. Heemskerk J., van Gemert W.G., de Vries J., Greve J., and Bouvy N.D. Learning curves of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery: an experimental study evaluating skill acquisition of robot-assisted laparoscopic tasks compared with conventional laparoscopic tasks in inexperienced users. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 17 (2007) 171-174
23. Schwentner C., Pelzer A., Neururer R., et al. Robotic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty: 5-year experience of one centre. BJU Intern 100 (2007) 880-885
24. Cook A., Khoury A., Bagli D., McLorie G.A., El-Ghoneimi A., and Farhat W.A. The development of laparoscopic surgical skills in pediatric urologists: longterm outcome of a mentorship-training model. Can J Urol 12 (2005) 2824-2828
25. Bonnema J., van Wersch A.M., van Geel A.N., et al. Cost of care in a randomised trial of early hospital discharge after surgery for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 34 (1998) 2015-2020
26. Caplan G., Board N., Paten A., et al. Decreasing lengths of stay: the cost to the community. Aust N Z J Surg 69 (1999) 433-437
27. Gettman M.T., Neururer R., Bartsch G., and Peschel R. Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology 60 (2002) 509-513
28. Madi R., Roberts W.W., and Wolf Jr. J.S. Late failures after laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Urology 71 (2008) 677-680
29. Psooy K., Pike J.G., and Leonard M.P. Long-term followup of pediatric dismembered pyeloplasty: how long is long enough?. J Urol 169 (2003) 1809-1812
30. Schunemann H.J., Jaeschke R., Cook D.J., et al. An official ATS statement: grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines and recommendations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 174 (2006) 605-614