Background: Minimally invasive treatment of benign ureteral strictures is still challenging because of its technical complexity. In this context, robot-assisted surgery may overcome the limits of the laparoscopic approach. Objective: To evaluate outcomes for robotic ureteral repair in a multi-institutional cohort of patients treated for ureteropelvic junction obstruction and ureteral stricture (US) at four tertiary referral centres. Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective study reports data for 183 patients treated with standard robot-assisted pyeloplasty (PYP) and robotic uretero-ureterostomy (UUY) at four high-volume centres from January 2006 to September 2014. Surgical procedure: Robotic PYP and robot-assisted UUY were performed according to previously reported surgical techniques. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables and outcomes were assessed. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed. Results and limitations: No robot-assisted UUY cases required surgical conversion, while 2.8% of PYP cases were not completed robotically. The median operative time was 120 and 150min for robot-assisted PYP and robot-assisted UUY, respectively. No intraoperative complications were reported. The overall complication rate for all procedures was 11% (n=20) and complications were mostly of low grade. The high-grade complication rate was 2.2% (n=4). At median follow-up of 24 mo, the overall success rate was >90% for both procedures. The study limitations include its retrospective nature and the heterogeneity of the study population. Conclusions: Robotic surgery for benign US is safe and effective, with limited risk of high-grade complications and good intermediate-term results.

Robot-assisted Surgery for Benign Ureteral Strictures: Experience and Outcomes from Four Tertiary Care Institutions

Bertolo, Riccardo;
2017-01-01

Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive treatment of benign ureteral strictures is still challenging because of its technical complexity. In this context, robot-assisted surgery may overcome the limits of the laparoscopic approach. Objective: To evaluate outcomes for robotic ureteral repair in a multi-institutional cohort of patients treated for ureteropelvic junction obstruction and ureteral stricture (US) at four tertiary referral centres. Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective study reports data for 183 patients treated with standard robot-assisted pyeloplasty (PYP) and robotic uretero-ureterostomy (UUY) at four high-volume centres from January 2006 to September 2014. Surgical procedure: Robotic PYP and robot-assisted UUY were performed according to previously reported surgical techniques. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables and outcomes were assessed. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed. Results and limitations: No robot-assisted UUY cases required surgical conversion, while 2.8% of PYP cases were not completed robotically. The median operative time was 120 and 150min for robot-assisted PYP and robot-assisted UUY, respectively. No intraoperative complications were reported. The overall complication rate for all procedures was 11% (n=20) and complications were mostly of low grade. The high-grade complication rate was 2.2% (n=4). At median follow-up of 24 mo, the overall success rate was >90% for both procedures. The study limitations include its retrospective nature and the heterogeneity of the study population. Conclusions: Robotic surgery for benign US is safe and effective, with limited risk of high-grade complications and good intermediate-term results.
2017
Outcomes
Reimplantation
Robot-assisted surgery
Surgical technique
Ureter
Ureteral strictures
Ureteral surgery
Urology
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11562/1111747
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 19
  • Scopus 58
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 46
social impact