Long-term experience and outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children and young adults

Journal of Urology

Volumn 185, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 1455-1460

  Minnillo, Brian J ^a   Cruz, Jose A S ^a   Sayao, Rogerio H ^a   Passerotti, Carlo C ^a   Houck, Constance S ^a   Meier, Petra M ^a   Borer, Joseph G ^a   Diamond, David A ^a   Retik, Alan B ^a   Nguyen, Hiep T ^a  

^a BOSTON CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

child; kidney pelvis; laparoscopy; robotics; ureteral obstruction

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHILD; CHILD CARE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HYDRONEPHROSIS; LENGTH OF STAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OPERATION DURATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PYELOPLASTY; RECURRENT DISEASE; REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; ROBOTIC ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PYELOPLASTY; SCHOOL CHILD; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; URETER OBSTRUCTION;

CHILD; FEMALE; HUMANS; KIDNEY PELVIS; LAPAROSCOPY; MALE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROBOTICS; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URETERAL OBSTRUCTION; UROLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79952708664     PISSN: 00225347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.11.056     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Notley RG and Beaugie JM: The long-term followup of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty for hydronephrosis. Br J Urol 1973; 45: 464.
2. O'Reilly PH, Brooman PJ, Mak S et al: The long-term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. BJU Int 2001; 87: 287.
3. Persky L, Krause JR and Boltuch RL: Initial complications and late results in dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1977; 118: 162.
4. Peters CA, Schlussel RN and Retik AB: Pediatric laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1995; 153: 1962.
5. Passerotti CC, Passerotti AM, Dall'Oglio MF et al: Comparing the quality of the suture anastomosis and the learning curves associated with performing open, freehand, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in a swine animal model. J Am Coll Surg 2009; 208: 576.
6. Lee R, Retik A, Borer J et al: Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol 2006; 175: 683.
7. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML et al: The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 2009; 250: 187.
8. Dindo D, Demartines N and Clavien PA: Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004; 240: 205.
9. van Haasteren G, Levine S and Hayes W: Pediatric robotic surgery: early assessment. Pediatrics 2009; 124: 1642.
10. Olsen L, Rawashdeh Y and Jorgensen T: Pediatric robot assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty: a 5-year experience. J Urol 2007; 178: 2137.
11. Franco I, Dyer LL and Zelkovic P: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient: hand sewn anastomosis vs robotic assisted anastomosis - is there a difference? J Urol 2007; 178: 1483.
12. Yee D, Shanberg A, Duel B et al: Initial comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic vs open pyeloplasty in children. Urology 2006; 67: 599.
13. Freilich DA, Penna FJ, Nelson CP et al: Parental satisfaction after open vs robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: results from modified Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory Survey. J Urol 2010; 183: 704.