Meta-analysis of robot-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children

BJU International

Volumn 114, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 582-594

  Cundy, Thomas P ^a,b   Harling, Leanne ^b   Hughes Hallett, Archie ^a,b   Mayer, Erik K ^b   Najmaldin, Azad S ^c   Athanasiou, Thanos ^b   Yang, Guang Zhong ^a   Darzi, Ara ^a,b  

^a Institute of Global Health Innovation   (United Kingdom)

^b ST MARY S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c LEEDS GENERAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

children; paediatric; pelvi ureteric junction obstruction; pyeloplasty; robot assisted; robotic

Indexed keywords

MORPHINE; OPIATE;

ARTICLE; CHILD; CONVERSION TO OPEN SURGERY; EFFECT SIZE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; LENGTH OF STAY; META ANALYSIS; OPERATION DURATION; OPERATIVE BLOOD LOSS; PEDIATRIC SURGERY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; PYELOPLASTY; REOPERATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; ROBOT ASSISTED PYELOPLASTY; ROBOTICS; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URETEROPELVIC JUNCTION OBSTRUCTION; URINE INCONTINENCE; ADOLESCENT; COMPLICATION; INFANT; KIDNEY DISEASES; LAPAROSCOPY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PATHOLOGY; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PROCEDURES; URETERAL OBSTRUCTION;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; HUMANS; INFANT; KIDNEY DISEASES; LAPAROSCOPY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY AS TOPIC; ROBOTICS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URETERAL OBSTRUCTION;

EID: 84908140806     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bju.12683     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Cundy TP, Shetty K, Clark J, et al. The first decade of robotic surgery in children. J Pediatr Surg 2013; 48: 858-865
2. Monn MF, Bahler CD, Schneider EB, et al. Trends in robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric patients. Urology 2013; 81: 1336-1341
3. Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, et al. Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet 2009; 374: 1089-1096
4. Hirst A, Agha RA, Rosin D, McCulloch P,. How can we improve surgical research and innovation?: the IDEAL framework for action. Int J Surg 2013; 11: 1038-1042
5. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG,. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339: b2535
6. Athanasiou T, Al-Ruzzeh S, Kumar P, et al. Off-pump myocardial revascularization is associated with less incidence of stroke in elderly patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2004; 77: 745-753
7. Barbosa JA, Kowal A, Onal B, et al. Comparative evaluation of the resolution of hydronephrosis in children who underwent open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Pediatr Urol 2013; 9: 199-205
8. Behan JW, Kim SS, Dorey F, et al. Human capital gains associated with robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children compared to open pyeloplasty. J Urol 2011; 186: 1663-1667
9. Franco I, Dyer LL, Zelkovic P,. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient: hand sewn anastomosis versus robotic assisted anastomosis-is there a difference? J Urol 2007; 178: 1483-1486
10. Kim S, Canter D, Leone N, Patel R, Casale P,. A comparative study between laparoscopic and robotically assisted pyeloplasty in the pediatric population. J Urol 2008; 179: 357
11. Lee RS, Retik AB, Borer JG, Peters CA,. Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol 2006; 175: 683-687
12. Riachy E, Cost NG, Defoor WR, Reddy PP, Minevich EA, Noh PH,. Pediatric standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a comparative single institution study. J Urol 2013; 189: 283-287
13. Sorensen MD, Delostrinos C, Johnson MH, Grady RW, Lendvay TS,. Comparison of the learning curve and outcomes of robotic assisted pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol 2011; 185: 2517-2522
14. Subotic U, Rohard I, Weber DM, Gobet R, Moehrlen U, Gonzalez R,. A minimal invasive surgical approach for children of all ages with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Pediatr Urol 2012; 8: 354-358
15. Swana HS, Rodriguez AR, Weber TA, Rich MA,. Pediatric robotic pyeloplasty: the learning curve and comparison with a cohort of open pyeloplasty. Int J Med Robot 2011; 7 (S1): 25
16. Yee DS, Shanberg AM, Duel BP, Rodriguez E, Eichel L, Rajpoot D,. Initial comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. Urology 2006; 67: 599-602
17. Casella DP, Fox JA, Schneck FX, Cannon GM, Ost MC,. Cost analysis of pediatric robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol 2013; 189: 1083-1086
18. Dangle PP, Kearns J, Anderson B, Gundeti MS,. Outcomes of infants undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty compared to open repair. J Urol 2013; 190: 2221-2227
19. Rowe CK, Pierce MW, Tecci KC, et al. A comparative direct cost analysis of pediatric urologic robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery: could robot-assisted surgery be less expensive? J Endourol 2012; 26: 871-877
20. Barbosa JA, Barayan G, Gridley CM, et al. Parent and patient perceptions of robotic vs open urological surgery scars in children. J Urol 2013; 190: 244-250
21. Freilich DA, Penna FJ, Nelson CP, Retik AB, Nguyen HT,. Parental satisfaction after open versus robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: results from modified Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory Survey. J Urol 2010; 183: 704-708
22. Marcus HJ, Hughes-Hallett A, Cundy TP, Nandi D, Yang GZ, Darzi A,. Not everything that counts can be easily counted. BMJ 2013; 346: f2461
23. Esposito C, El Ghoneimi A, Yamataka A, et al. Work-related upper limb musculoskeletal disorders in paediatric laparoscopic surgery. A multicenter survey. J Pediatr Surg 2013; 48: 1750-1756
24. Paul S, McCulloch P, Sedrakyan A,. Robotic surgery: revisiting 'no innovation without evaluation'. BMJ 2013; 346: f1573
25. Barbash GI, Glied SA,. New technology and health care costs-the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 701-704
26. Cook JA, McCulloch P, Blazeby JM, Beard DJ, Marinac-Dabic D, Sedrakyan A,. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 3: randomised controlled trials in the assessment stage and evaluations in the long term study stage. BMJ 2013; 346: f2820
27. Dingemann J, Ure BM,. Systematic review of level 1 evidence for laparoscopic pediatric surgery: do our procedures comply with the requirements of evidence-based medicine? Eur J Pediatr Surg 2013; 23: 474-479
28. Minnillo BJ, Cruz JA, Sayao RH, et al. Long-term experience and outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children and young adults. J Urol 2011; 185: 1455-1460
29. Autorino R, Eden C, El-Ghoneimi A, et al. Robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 430-452
30. Braga LH, Pace K, DeMaria J, Lorenzo AJ,. 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. Eur Urol 2009; 56: 848-857
31. Link RE, Bhayani SB, Kavoussi LR,. A prospective comparison of robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Ann Surg 2006; 243: 486-491
32. Peters CA,. Pediatric robot-assisted pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2011; 25: 179-185
33. Olsen LH, Rawashdeh YF, Jorgensen TM,. Pediatric robot assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty: a 5-year experience. J Urol 2007; 178: 2137-2141
34. Rodriguez AR, Rich MA, Swana HS,. Stentless pediatric robotic pyeloplasty. Ther Adv Urol 2012; 4: 57-60
35. Vitiello V, Lee SL, Cundy TP, Yang GZ,. Emerging robotic platforms for minimally invasive surgery. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng 2013; 6: 111-126