Abstract
Purpose of Review
In this review, we summarize research that has evaluated the role of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) and robotic surgery in pediatric urology, highlighting new and/or controversial ideas.
Recent Findings
The newest research developments over the last several years are studies that address generalizability of these techniques, ideal patient factors, extrapolation to more complex surgeries, and comparative studies to more traditional techniques to define the associated costs and benefits, as well as patient-centered outcomes. Specifically in the field of LESS, addressing the limitations of suboptimal vision, instrument crowding, and loss of triangulation have been a focus. The literature is now replete with new applications for robotic surgery as well as descriptions of the specific technical challenges inherent to pediatrics.
Summary
Robotic surgery and LESS are areas of growth in pediatric urology that allow continual innovation and expansion of technology within a surgeon's armamentarium.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Laparoendoscopic Single-Site (LESS) Surgery
Introduction
Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery has now been reported in the pediatric urology population for roughly 10 years since the first case reports were published on LESS varicocelectomy and nephrectomy [1, 2]. In the first 5 years after these reports, several institutions published series focused on varicocelectomy, orchiopexy, and extirpative procedures such as simple nephrectomy to demonstrate equivalency with open and traditional laparoscopy in terms of safety, efficacy, and operative time [3,4,5]. Pyeloplasty was reported in select series but few other reconstructive procedures have been described [6•]. An experienced laparoscopic surgeon can consider LESS as a viable and safe option for surgeries that include hernia repair, gonadectomy, varicocelectomy, orchiopexy, urachal cyst excision, renal cyst ablation, nephrectomy/nephroureterectomy, and heminephrectomy.
LESS Inguinal Hernia Repair
A multitude of techniques have been described for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in the pediatric surgery and urology literature, including LESS, with an overall recurrence rate cited around 4% [7]. The extraperitoneal approach (also described often as single-site laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure, or SLPEC) is an established technique and the subject of a recent meta-analysis finding 51 studies with a total of 11,815 patients [8]. This technique involves placing an encirclage suture around the internal ring under laparoscopic guidance and cinching it tight. Recently, it has been suggested that the use of non-absorbable suture greatly reduced the incidence of recurrence compared to absorbable (0.5–4 vs. 19–26%) [8, 9]. This technique has a comparable success rate to open and enjoys widespread use, with the downside that involvement of the extraperitoneal space in the ligature creates the potential for suture granuloma, skin puckering, and/or postoperative pain from involving the nerves and muscles in these layers [10, 11].
Intraperitoneal LESS hernia repair has been described with slight variations as well, the main difference being whether the patent processus is disconnected then the peritoneum closed, or if the ring is simply closed with a purse string. The recently described T-LESS (two-port) procedure utilizes a camera port and closely placed second port in the umbilicus, instead of a multi-channel port, and passes a suture percutaneously in order to laparoscopically perform a purse-string closure [12]. In contrast, LESS can be performed using the conventional laparoscopic peritoneal leaflet method described by Giseke in 2010 in 525 hernia repairs with a 1% recurrence rate [13]. The transperitoneal division of the hernia sac followed by purse-string closure, with regular suture or alternately a V-lock barbed suture to negate the need for knot-tying, most closely mimics the open repair while allowing for a minimally invasive approach [14]. A prospective randomized controlled study of conventional laparoscopy in hernia repair from Egypt of 132 males addressed the question of leaving the sac intact and found not surprisingly that the group with division of the sac had a slightly longer operative time (27.68 ± 2.58 vs. 20.42 ± 1.78 min for unilateral cases), however had no recurrences vs. two cases (2.6%) in the group where only purse-string suture was performed [15]. In our experience, LESS hernia repair with division of the patent processus and closure with V-lock suture has provided the most durable long-term results [16] (Fig. 1).
LESS Varicocelectomy and Gonadectomy
Varicocele was another early adopted procedure amenable to LESS and thus far 60 cases have been reported [17, 18]. LESS varicocelectomy is performed transperitoneally, and in a 2016 systematic review, the mean operative time of 52 cases was 38.3 min, with one complication reported (1.7%; hydrocele requiring secondary procedure) [17]. Gonadectomy has been performed in cases of Turners syndrome with Y-mosaicism, as well as for other indications [19, 20]. We now routinely use single-site laparoscopic approach for gonadectomy at our institution.
LESS Nephrectomy and Nephroureterectomy
The use of LESS for renal extirpative surgery has seen an increase in total reported cases over the last decade. Gor et al. published a multi-institutional retrospective study involving three surgeons in which almost all procedures were extirpative aside from two Malone antegrade continence enemas. With a median age of 5 years, 41 of a total 59 patients underwent nephrectomy or nephroureterectomy with acceptable OR times and two complications (port site hernia and superficial wound infection) [19]. A systematic review of LESS nephrectomy summarized studies with a cumulative 165 patients who underwent transperitoneal nephrectomy and 19 patients retroperitoneal (RP) nephrectomy/nephroureterectomy [17]. All cases of partial nephrectomy were performed transperitoneal. No RP cases required an additional port, the size of incision ranged from 1.1 to 2.5 cm, and the procedure length ranged from 50 to 90 min.
LESS Reconstructive Procedures
Single-site surgery is thus not limited to transperitoneal surgery, and in particular, a retroperitoneal (RP) approach may be employed or preferred for kidney surgery given the advantages of direct access to the UPJ and eliminating any theoretical peritoneal complications. Pyeloplasty is a candidate procedure for an RP LESS approach; however, with the inherent limitations of smaller working space and an already technically challenging surgery laparoscopically, pushing this further to a single-site approach is controversial [21]. Perhaps combating the idea of smaller space as limiting, Badawy et al. reviewed 15 patients less than 2 years old who underwent conventional retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty. Their conversion rate to open was 20% (n = 3), for too narrow a space or peritoneal violation, but all three patients were < 3 months old; no statistically significant difference was found for gender or side [22]. To date, Blanc has published the largest series of conventional laparoscopic RP pediatric pyeloplasties at a teaching hospital; a major point of which was the long learning curve which they estimated to be roughly 30 cases [21]. Thus, it could be argued that the learning curve for RP LESS pyeloplasty will no doubt be much longer.
Whether LESS has room for expansion into other reconstructive surgeries and whether this necessitates use of different or more advanced instrumentation remain to be seen. Gor et al. reported two Malone antegrade continence enema (MACE) in their series with a median operative time of 119 min; to the best of our knowledge, this is the first report [19]. Despite scattered ureteral cases in adults, no reports of pediatric LESS ureteral reimplantation or ureteroureterostomy exist in the literature [23, 24].
Advantages of LESS Surgery
A standard explanation for migration towards minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is in part cosmetic outcomes. In general, the umbilical incision for a transperitoneal LESS procedure in pediatrics is described as anywhere between 1 and 2.5 cm within the umbilicus, depending on the port that is used [19, 25, 26]. At our institution, we have found that the GelPoint Mini (Applied Medical) is suitable for a 1.5-cm incision and can accommodate 5–12-mm instruments. The ability to hide the scar within the umbilicus as opposed to a flank incision has led some authors to conclude that cosmesis is improved with the transperitoneal approach, although objective assessments and patient-centered outcomes have yet to be done [25]. If one of the main drivers of single-site surgery is cosmesis, however, then it would naturally follow that this could be an important factor in choosing transperitoneal versus RP access that would not be hidden.
Another argument in support of LESS surgery aside from cosmesis is that reducing the number of ports will in turn reduce the opportunity for port site complications. Within the pediatric urology literature, the risk of port site hernia is 3.2%, and limiting the sites to one central port with a capacious incision that facilitates vision for closure could theoretically decrease this risk though no studies have addressed this risk comparatively [19].
There are few patient factors that are prohibitive for LESS procedures, aside from established conventional laparoscopic principles of candidacy. The lower age limit of safely performing LESS has been proposed to be 3 years due to the port apparatus; however, numerous reports of patients as young as 2.5 months safely undergoing LESS are in the literature [4, 25, 27].
Recent Innovations
In pediatric urology, LESS technology has certainly advanced from the earliest descriptions of the technique, such as the series by Ham et al. who reported outcomes of 6 patients using a homemade port consisting of a sterile glove through which conventional ports were placed [28]. Currently, there are a large number of commercially available ports and instruments [3, 27]. Our experience has been with the GelPoint and GelPoint mini (Applied Medical) ports, which allow for adequate visualization and instrument spacing using conventional laparoscopic nonarticulating instruments.
Innovation in minimally invasive surgery has come from both device manufacturers and surgeons. Adapting the idea of a single port through the umbilicus, Chiang et al. described a new multi-port technique that utilizes the central theme of an umbilical incision for a central trocar but incorporates adjacent fascial stab incisions for a grasper and telescope. The authors make the case that most LESS procedures (outside of nephrectomy owing to the multiple exchanges of instruments) can be done using this technique with no compromise on cosmetic outcome [29].
Just as port type and placement have been described in various ways, instrumentation is starting to be defined. Articulating instruments are available at the 5-mm size; however, in the vast majority of pediatric urology reviews, standard laparoscopic instrumentation is used for LESS without the addition of articulating or disposable instruments [29, 30]. To date, there is little literature on the cost-effectiveness of LESS as compared to traditional laparoscopy, which would be affected not only by disposable costs but also by operative time [6•, 31]. Over the last several years, many new instruments have been developed and come on the market to help overcome the difficulties of LESS, namely instrument clashing, vision, and difficulty with suturing [32]. Given the cost of robotic surgery and the perceived limited ability of LESS in regard to more complex cases, perhaps there is a role to incorporate the use of articulating instruments and future innovative tools.
Limitations
Intuitively, LESS surgery is an ideal method for extirpative surgery as a single larger incision can be used for specimen extraction yet still provide excellent cosmesis. However, its expansion to and regular use in reconstructive surgery is more controversial. Pyeloplasty was reported early in the LESS literature; however, there have been few comparative studies since then addressing its role versus traditional laparoscopy and robotics [33].
Perhaps one of the most important limiting factors in more generalized LESS adoption is a thorough understanding of the learning curve for these procedures. A steep learning curve is cited for various adult LESS urologic studies, and indeed, the EAU 2013 guidelines for single-site laparoscopic surgery recommended only expert laparoscopic surgeons perform these surgeries [34]. In experienced hands, Abdel-Karim et al. found at least 30 LESS procedures were required to achieve professional competence in adult patients (the majority upper urinary tract procedures and transperitoneal) [4]. To date, there are no robust learning curve papers in the pediatric urologic LESS literature.
Robotics in Pediatric Urology
Introduction
Robotic surgery has rapidly evolved over the last few decades to become an integral part of pediatric urologic practice and in some cases has evolved to be a new gold standard (e.g., robotic pyeloplasty) [35]. Most of the early literature that naturally followed are technique descriptions; however, there has now been an exponential increase in studies that support the robotic platform, most notably for robotic pyeloplasty (RALP). In addition, studies have been conducted that explore the advantages and potential risks of robotic surgery, as in extravesical reimplantation (RALUR), and descriptions of techniques for more advanced reconstructive procedures such as robotic ureteroureterostomies (R-UU) and lower urinary tract reconstruction.
The described advantages of robotic surgery in pediatric urology include a dual-channel telescope that provides a magnified and high-definition three-dimensional image, tremor control, and allowance of delicate maneuvers and many degrees of “wrist” freedom that are generally not possible with laparoscopy. Pediatric robotic cases, as a generality, will involve a smaller working space than adult which may lead to instrument interference and require careful port site considerations. The use of 5-mm ports and instrumentation has eased this burden and also allowed for even better cosmesis in younger patients [36].
Commonly described disadvantages of robotics are higher cost and longer operative time. While likely multifactorial, many authors are now suggesting technical modifications or nuances to chip away at operative time. A reduction in surgical fog with a warm humidified gas management protocol was recently described and shortened the operative time in 26 patients undergoing a variety of robotic procedures [37]. The learning curve in robotics is also a target for reducing operative time; however, most graduating residents and fellows will now have had robotics training and one study showed that fellowship-trained surgeons can quickly attain competency within established robotic surgical programs [38].
Cosmesis in Robotic Surgery
Cosmesis was assumed to be better in the early years of robotics given the smaller nature of the incisions, but robust unbiased studies of pediatric patients with true patient- and parent-reported outcomes have been elusive. Barbosa et al. found that robotic scars were perceived as cosmetically superior to open scars, and this was a highly relevant factor affecting patient and parent decisions [39]. This preference was more pronounced for robotic bladder augmentation and RALUR. In an attempt to improve upon cosmetic outcomes further, Gargollo employed the hidden incision endoscopic surgery (HIdES) trocar placement for RALP in 29 patients [40]. By placing two port sites at the level of a Pfannenstiel incision and the third within the umbilicus, this technique is purported to have improved satisfaction with cosmetic outcome by patients and parents. A larger study was recently performed by Hong et al. directly comparing outcomes of traditional port placement and HIdES for RALP and found that outcomes at a median follow-up of 42 months, including length of surgical time and postoperative complications, were not compromised [41].
Age in Robotic Surgery
In particular, age becomes an important consideration as robotic surgery was initially thought to be only appropriate for older children. This idea has been challenged by several series for patients aged < 12 months. Bansal et al. reviewed 10 infants (8 RALP, 2 R-UU) with an age range of 3–12 months old, found there were no intraoperative complications, and concluded that robotic upper urinary tract reconstruction is technically feasible and safe in this age group [42]. Expanding upon this, Avery et al. performed a retrospective review across multiple institutions of infant RALP, the largest published series at 60 patients operated on by 6 experienced robotic surgeons. They found a 91% success rate and an 11% complication rate, equivalent to modern series, and concluded that infant RALP is safe and efficacious [43]. However, no prospective randomized comparisons exist in the literature to show equivalent outcomes in this age group [44].
Specific Procedures
Innovation abounds in robotic surgery with continual expansion of its application, including reports on pediatric retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, renal transplant ureteral reconstruction, and redo RALP with buccal mucosa graft for recurrent UPJO with significant fibrosis or stricture [45,46,47].
Robotic Pyeloplasty
The most robust data for efficacy and safety is undeniably in RALP, which is the most commonly performed robotic surgery in pediatric urology. The earliest surgery to be described as the most suitable to robotic technology, its success has been replicated in multiple large multicenter studies [35, 48, 49]. The success rate is > 90% and has reached equivalence with open, and many consider RALP to now be the gold standard for surgical reconstruction of UPJ obstruction [35, 50]. Indeed, there has been a trend towards minimally invasive pyeloplasty and away from open surgery in national database studies [51, 52]. Chan et al. found using a University Health Consortium of 102 academic institutions, there was a trend away from laparoscopic pyeloplasty and towards RALP; and of the 633 RALP cases, the mean patient age had decreased significantly [48]. RALP also appears to be safe and often the preferred choice for reoperative pyeloplasty, with acceptable operative times, lengths of stay, and complication rates [53, 54]. At our institution, reoperative pyeloplasty is performed robotically, allowing identification of crossing vessels and giving maximal exposure.
Ureteral Reimplantation
A more controversial use of robotic surgery is in ureteral reimplantation with wide-ranging reported success rates for robotic extravesical ureteral reimplant (RALUR). Despite the controversy in the literature, RALUR is a technique that appears to be gaining traction according to national databases such as the HCUP Kids Inpatient Database (KID), showing that although the total number of ureteral reimplantations had decreased from 2000 to 2012 by 14.3%, the proportion performed in a minimally invasive fashion increased from 0.6 to 6.3% with the vast majority being robotic (81.2%) [55]. However, there are conflicting data in the literature regarding safety and efficacy as compared to the open procedure, with most available literature coming from small, single-institution series. A recent comparative analysis addressed voiding dysfunction following bilateral RALUR and found that it was not associated with an increased risk of postoperative urinary retention compared to unilateral surgery [56]. Regarding efficacy, a 2015 multi-institutional retrospective review of 61 patients (93 ureters) found a 72% success rate at a mean follow-up of 11.7 months with six complications (10%) [57•]. Subsequently, a 2017 multi-institutional study combining data from nine academic centers found that of 280 ureters (170 patients) with available postoperative dynamic imaging, 87.9% demonstrated radiographic resolution. There were 25 complications overall (9.6%) and four patients (3.9%) with transient urinary retention following bilateral RALUR [58]. Given these findings that do fall slightly short of the gold standard, continued attempts to refine specific techniques and patient factors associated with success are critical.
Dismembered ureteral reimplants for UVJ obstruction and bladder diverticula can also be performed robotically [59]. Different techniques have been described and surgeons have various methods for performing intracorporeal ureteral tailoring and a tunneled reimplantation [60, 61].
Ureteroureterostomy and Heminephrectomy
The initial literature for R-UU and robotic heminephrectomy (RHN) was limited to a handful of case reports and technique descriptions; however, in the last 3 years, several larger series and retrospective comparative analyses have been published, importantly attempting to establish safety and efficacy [62,63,64]. R-UU appears to have equivocal mean operative times and complication rates as open, and in comparing R-UU to RHN, although RHN may carry a small risk of lower pole function loss, both have similar overall complications rates [63, 64]. Malik et al. reported on RHN as compared to open and laparoscopic series and found that mean renal function loss in RHN was 2.6% in 7 patients, with 1 patient experiencing loss over 10% [65]. An interesting addition to the robotic repertoire is selective arterial mapping with indocyanine green (ICG)-induced near-infrared fluorescence (NIRF) using Firefly TM infrared system on the da Vinci to aid in dissection and separation of duplex parenchyma [66]. The hope is that use of this technology will allow for more accurate surgical technique and further limit damage to normal parenchyma.
Lower Urinary Tract Reconstruction
Robotic appendicovesicostomy (APV) creation has become increasingly popular, and just recently, a few important studies have been published to bolster the literature. A multicenter retrospective study of 88 patients characterized functional and perioperative outcomes—short-term complications occurred in 29.5% of patients (most commonly ileus) and 12.5% required eventual APV revision with an 85.2% initial continence rate [67]. In a comparison of 28 open and 39 robotic APVs at a single institution, the authors found no significant difference in 30-day complications or reoperations (33 vs. 29%) at a mean of 2.7 years follow-up [68]. One interesting difference to note is that the reasons for reoperation differed—robotic APV patients were more likely to be revised due to incontinence versus stomal prolapse or stenosis in the open group. The reason behind this is unclear, although the authors speculate it is related to tunnel length [68].
Studies in other areas of pediatric robotic complex reconstruction are extremely limited, though. Robotic intracorporeal enterocystoplasty remains a challenging but feasible operation and the literature contains technique descriptions and case series, often as part of APV series [69, 70]. Similarly, bladder neck (BN) reconstruction has had a dearth of robust studies following initial descriptions in 2008, with one large single-institution series of 38 patients undergoing robotic APV with concomitant Mitchell/Leadbetter BN reconstruction and bladder neck sling, showing feasibility [71,72,73].
Conclusions and Future Directions
Both LESS and robotic surgery have seen an expansion in the last decade, fueled by advances in technology and innovation to push surgical limits. Advanced instrumentation may come in the form of robotic laparoendoscopic single-site (R-LESS) surgery. Proponents of R-LESS tout improved cosmesis and reduced incidence of postoperative complications such as incisional hernias, as well as the enhancements in optics and ergonomics that have addressed previous deficits in single-site surgery [74]. The first urologic report of R-LESS was in 2009 describing three adult patients and thus far the pediatric literature is sparse [75]. The introduction of the endowrist da Vinci technology in 2015 to further ease difficulties with triangulation for surgeries with extensive suturing has the potential to increase utilization [74].
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance
Bayazit Y, Aridogan IA, Abat D, Satar N, Doran S. Pediatric transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site nephroureterectomy: initial report. Urology. 2009;74(5):1116–9.
Kaouk JH, Palmer JS. Single-port laparoscopic surgery: initial experience in children for varicocelectomy. BJU Int. 2008;102(1):97–9.
Kawauchi A, Naitoh Y, Miki T. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery for pediatric patients in urology. Curr Opin Urol. 2011;21(4):303–8.
Abdel-Karim AM, Fahmy A, Moussa A, Rashad H, Elbadry M, Badawy H, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus open pyeloplasty for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. Journal of pediatric urology. 2016;12(6):401 e1–6.
Luithle T, Szavay P, Fuchs J. Single-incision laparoscopic nephroureterectomy in children of all age groups. J Pediatr Surg. 2013;48(5):1142–6.
• Khambati A, Wehbi E, Farhat WA. Laparo-endoscopic single site surgery in pediatrics: Feasibility and surgical outcomes from a preliminary prospective Canadian experience. Can Urol Assoc J = JAssoc Urol Can. 2015;9(1–2):48–52. Primary analysis of pediatric LESS procedures analyzed prospectively.
Boo YJ, Han HJ, Ji WB, Lee JS. Laparoscopic hernia sac transection and intracorporeal ligation show very low recurrence rate in pediatric inguinal hernia. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012;22(7):720–3.
Chen Y, Wang F, Zhong H, Zhao J, Li Y, Shi Z. A systematic review and meta-analysis concerning single-site laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure for pediatric inguinal hernia and hydrocele. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(12):4888–901.
Grimsby GM, Keays MA, Villanueva C, Bush NC, Snodgrass WT, Gargollo PC, et al. Non-absorbable sutures are associated with lower recurrence rates in laparoscopic percutaneous inguinal hernia ligation. J Pediatr Urol. 2015;11(5):275 e1–4.
Ozgediz D, Roayaie K, Lee H, Nobuhara KK, Farmer DL, Bratton B, et al. Subcutaneous endoscopically assisted ligation (SEAL) of the internal ring for repair of inguinal hernias in children: report of a new technique and early results. Surg Endosc. 2007;21(8):1327–31.
Dariusz PCJ, Chrzan R, et al. Percutaneous internal ring suturing: A simple minimally invasive technique for inguinal hernia repair in children. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2006;16(5):513–7.
Wang F, Shou T, Zhong H. Is two-port laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (T-LESS) feasible for pediatric hydroceles? Single-center experience with the initial 59 cases. J Pediatr Urol. 2017.
Giseke SGM, Tapadar P, et al. A true laparoscopic herniotomy in children: evaluation of long-term outcome. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2010;20(2):191–4.
Wheeler AA, Matz ST, Schmidt S, Pimpalwar A. Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in children with transperitoneal division of the hernia sac and proximal purse string closure of peritoneum: our modified new approach. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2011;21(6):381–5.
Abd-Alrazek M, Alsherbiny H, Mahfouz M, Alsamahy O, Shalaby R, Shams A, et al. Laparoscopic pediatric inguinal hernia repair: a controlled randomized study. J Pediatr Surg. 2017;52(10):1539–44.
Van Batavia JP TC, Chu DI, and Srinivasan AK. Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair by primary peritoneal flap repair: description of technique and initial results in children. Pediatric Urology Fall Congress, Dallas TX. 2016.
Symeonidis EN, Nasioudis D, Economopoulos KP. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) for major urological procedures in the pediatric population: a systematic review. Int J Surg. 2016;29:53–61.
Esposito C, Escolino M, Castagnetti M, Cerulo M, Settimi A, Cortese G, et al. Two decades of experience with laparoscopic varicocele repair in children: standardizing the technique. J Pediatr Urol. 2017.
Gor RA, Long CJ, Shukla AR, Kirsch AJ, Perez-Brayfield M, Srinivasan AK. Multi-institutional experience in laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS): for major extirpative and reconstructive procedures in pediatric urology. Urology. 2016;88:173–8.
Mizuno K, Kojima Y, Nishio H, Tozawa K, Mizuno H, Kohri K, et al. Transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site gonadectomy for Turner’s syndrome with Y-chromosome mosaicism. J Pediatr Urol. 2012;8(4):e39–42.
Blanc T, Muller C, Abdoul H, Peev S, Paye-Jaouen A, Peycelon M, et al. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: long-term outcome and critical analysis of 10-year experience in a teaching center. Eur Urol. 2013;63(3):565–72.
Badawy H, Saad A, Fahmy A, Dawood W, Aboulfotouh A, Kamal A, et al. Prospective evaluation of retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children in the first 2 years of life: Is age a risk factor for conversion? J Pediatr Urol. 2017;13(5):511 e1–4.
Gimbernat HRC, Garcia-Tello A, et al. Transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site ureteral reimplantation. Actas Urol Esp. 2015;39(3):195–200.
Tang ZY, Chen Z, He Y, Chen X, Fang XL, Li DJ, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site ureteroureterostomy with intraoperative retrograde ureteroscopy-assisted technique for benign proximal and middle ureteral strictures: a single-center experience. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2014;24(7):493–6.
Bansal D, Cost NG, Bean CM, Noh PH. Pediatric laparo-endoscopic single site partial nephrectomy: feasibility in infants and small children for upper urinary tract duplication anomalies. J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10(5):859–63.
Bowlin PR, Farhat WA. Laparoscopic nephrectomy and partial nephrectomy: intraperitoneal, retroperitoneal, single site. Urol Clin N Am. 2015;42(1):31–42.
Aneiros Castro B, Cabezali Barbancho D, Tordable Ojeda C, Carrillo Arroyo I, Redondo Sedano J, Gomez Fraile A. Laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy in children: is it a good alternative to conventional laparoscopic approach? J Pediatr Urol 2017.
Ham WS, Im YJ, Jung HJ, Hong CH, Han WK, Han SW. Initial experience with laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy and nephroureterectomy in children. Urology. 2011 May;77(5):1204–8.
Patel N, Santomauro M, Marietti S, Chiang G. Laparoendoscopic single site surgery in pediatric urology: does it require specialized tools? Int Braz J Urol: Off J Braz Soc Urol. 2016;42(2):277–83.
Tam YH, Pang KK, Tsui SY, Wong YS, Wong HY, Mou JW, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy and heminephroureterectomy in children using standard laparoscopic setup versus conventional laparoscopy. Urology. 2013;82(2):430–5.
Islam S, Adams SD, Mahomed AA. SILS: is it cost- and time-effective compared to standard pediatric laparoscopic surgery? Minim Invasive Surg. 2012;2012:807609.
Hallbeck MS, Lowndes BR, McCrory B, Morrow MM, Kaufman KR, LaGrange CA. Kinematic and ergonomic assessment of laparoendoscopic single-site surgical instruments during simulator training tasks. Appl Ergon. 2017;62:118–30.
Bi Y, Lu L, Ruan S. Using conventional 3- and 5-mm straight instruments in laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty in children. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2011;21(10):969–72.
Merseburger AS, Herrmann TR, Shariat SF, Kyriazis I, Nagele U, Traxer O, et al. EAU guidelines on robotic and single-site surgery in urology. Eur Urol. 2013;64(2):277–91.
Peters CA. Robotic pyeloplasty—the new standard of care? J Urol. 2008;180(4):1223–4.
Paradise HJ, Huang GO, Elizondo Saenz RA, Baek M, Koh CJ. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in infants using 5-mm instruments. J Pediatr Urol. 2017;13(2):221–2.
Meenakshi-Sundaram B, Furr JR, Malm-Buatsi E, Boklage B, Nguyen E, Frimberger D, et al. Reduction in surgical fog with a warm humidified gas management protocol significantly shortens procedure time in pediatric robot-assisted laparoscopic procedures. J Pediatr Urol. 2017;13(5):489 e1–5.
Bowen DK, Lindgren BW, Cheng EY, Gong EM. Can proctoring affect the learning curve of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty? Experience at a high-volume pediatric robotic surgery center. J Robot Surg. 2017;11(1):63–7.
Barbosa JA, Barayan G, Gridley CM, Sanchez DC, Passerotti CC, Houck CS, et al. Parent and patient perceptions of robotic vs open urological surgery scars in children. J Urol. 2013;190(1):244–50.
Gargollo PC. Hidden incision endoscopic surgery: description of technique, parental satisfaction and applications. J Urol. 2011;185(4):1425–31.
Hong YH, DeFoor WR, Jr, Reddy PP, Schulte M, Minevich EA, VanderBrink BA, et al. Hidden incision endoscopic surgery (HIdES) trocar placement for pediatric robotic pyeloplasty: comparison to traditional port placement. J Robot Surg. 2017.
Bansal D, Cost NG, Bean CM, Vanderbrink BA, Schulte M, Noh PH. Infant robot-assisted laparoscopic upper urinary tract reconstructive surgery. J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10(5):869–74.
Avery DI, Herbst KW, Lendvay TS, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Multi-institutional experience in infants. J Pediatr Urol. 2015;11:139.e1–5.
NG C. Commentary to “Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Multi-institutional experience in infants”. J Pediatr Urol. 2015;11:140.
Ahn JJ, Shapiro ME, Ellison JS, Lendvay TS. Pediatric robot-assisted redo pyeloplasty with buccal mucosa graft: a novel technique. Urology. 2017;101:56–9.
Glaser AP, Bowen DK, Lindgren BW, Meeks JJ. Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RA-RPLND) in the adolescent population. J Pediatr Urol. 2017;13(2):223–4.
Bowen DK, Casey JT, Cheng EY, Gong EM. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic transplant-to-native ureteroureterostomy in a pediatric patient. J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10(6):1284 e1–2.
Chan YY, Durbin-Johnson B, Sturm RM, Kurzrock EA. Outcomes after pediatric open, laparoscopic, and robotic pyeloplasty at academic institutions. J Pediatr Urol. 2017;13(1):49 e1–6.
Silay MS, Spinoit AF, Undre S, Fiala V, Tandogdu Z, Garmanova T, et al. Global minimally invasive pyeloplasty study in children: results from the Pediatric Urology Expert Group of the European Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists working party. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12(4):229 e1–7.
Romao RL, Koyle MA, Pippi Salle JL, Alotay A, Figueroa VH, Lorenzo AJ, et al. Failed pyeloplasty in children: revisiting the unknown. Urology. 2013;82(5):1145–7.
Varda BK, Johnson EK, Clark C, Chung BI, Nelson CP, Chang SL. National trends of perioperative outcomes and costs for open, laparoscopic and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2014;191(4):1090–5.
Liu DB, Ellimoottil C, Flum AS, Casey JT, Gong EM. Contemporary national comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pediatric pyeloplasty. J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10(4):610–5.
Davis TD, Burns AS, Corbett ST, Peters CA. Reoperative robotic pyeloplasty in children. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12(6):394 e1–7.
Asensio M, Gander R, Royo GF, Lloret J. Failed pyeloplasty in children: Is robot-assisted laparoscopic reoperative repair feasible? J Pediatr Urol. 2015;11(2):69 e1–6.
Bowen DK, Faasse MA, Liu DB, Gong EM, Lindgren BW, Johnson EK. Use of pediatric open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation in the United States: 2000 to 2012. J Urol. 2016;196(1):207–12.
Srinivasan AK, Maass D, Shrivastava D, Long CJ, Shukla AR. Is robot-assisted laparoscopic bilateral extravesical ureteral reimplantation associated with greater morbidity than unilateral surgery? A comparative analysis. J Pediatr Urol. 2017;13(5):494 e1–7.
• Grimsby GM, Dwyer ME, Jacobs MA, Ost MC, Schneck FX, Cannon GM, et al. Multi-institutional review of outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation. J Urol. 2015;193(5 Suppl):1791–5. A multi-institutional review calling into question the outcomes of RALUR, leading to further studies and debate in the literature.
Boysen WR, Ellison JS, Kim C, Koh CJ, Noh P, Whittam B, et al. Multi-institutional review of outcomes and complications of robot-assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation for treatment of primary vesicoureteral reflux in children. J Urol. 2017;197(6):1555–61.
Arlen AM, Broderick KM, Travers C, Smith EA, Elmore JM, Kirsch AJ. Outcomes of complex robot-assisted extravesical ureteral reimplantation in the pediatric population. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12(3):169 e1–6.
Hemal AK, Nayyar R, Rao R. Robotic repair of primary symptomatic obstructive megaureter with intracorporeal or extracorporeal ureteric tapering and ureteroneocystostomy. J Endourol. 2009;23(12):2041–6.
Li B, Lindgren BW, Liu DB, Gong EM. Robot-assisted laparoscopic megaureter tapering with ureteral reimplantation: tips and tricks. J Pediatr Urol. 2017;13(6):637–8.
Biles MJ, Finkelstein JB, Silva MV, Lambert SM, Casale P. Innovation in robotics and pediatric urology: robotic ureteroureterostomy for duplex systems with ureteral ectopia. J Endourol. 2016;30(10):1041–8.
Lee NG, Corbett ST, Cobb K, Bailey GC, Burns AS, Peters CA. Bi-institutional comparison of robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open ureteroureterostomy in the pediatric population. J Endourol. 2015 Nov;29(11):1237–41.
Dangle PP, Akhavan A, Odeleye M, Avery D, Lendvay T, Koh CJ, et al. Ninety-day perioperative complications of pediatric robotic urological surgery: a multi-institutional study. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12(2):102 e1–6.
Malik RD, Pariser JJ, Gundeti MS. Outcomes in pediatric robot-assisted laparoscopic heminephrectomy compared with contemporary open and laparoscopic series. J Endourol. 2015;29(12):1346–52.
Herz D, DaJusta D, Ching C, McLeod D. Segmental arterial mapping during pediatric robot-assisted laparoscopic heminephrectomy: A descriptive series. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12(4):266 e1–6.
Gundeti MS, Petravick ME, Pariser JJ, Pearce SM, Anderson BB, Grimsby GM, et al. A multi-institutional study of perioperative and functional outcomes for pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12(6):386 e1–5.
Grimsby GM, Jacobs MA, Gargollo PC. Comparison of complications of robot-assisted laparoscopic and open appendicovesicostomy in children. J Urol. 2015;194(3):772–6.
Murthy P, Cohn JA, Selig RB, Gundeti MS. Robot-assisted laparoscopic augmentation ileocystoplasty and Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy in children: updated interim results. Eur Urol. 2015;68(6):1069–75.
Wiestma AC, Estrada CR Jr, Cho PS, Hollis MV, Yu RN. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic bladder augmentation in the pediatric patient. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12(5):313 e1–2.
Storm DW, Fulmer BR, Sumfest JM. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic approach for posterior bladder neck dissection and placement of pediatric bladder neck sling: initial experience. Urology. 2008;72(5):1149–52.
Bagrodia A, Gargollo P. Robot-assisted bladder neck reconstruction, bladder neck sling, and appendicovesicostomy in children: description of technique and initial results. J Endourol. 2011;25(8):1299–305.
Gargollo PC. Robotic-assisted bladder neck repair: feasibility and outcomes. The Urologic clinics of North America. 2015;42(1):111–20.
Nelson RJ, Chavali JSS, Yerram N, Babbar P, Kaouk JH. Current status of robotic single-port surgery. Urol Ann. 2017;9(3):217–22.
Kaouk JH, Goel RK, Haber GP, Crouzet S, Stein RJ. Robotic single-port transumbilical surgery in humans: initial report. BJU Int. 2009;103(3):366–9.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Diana K. Bowen, Jason P. Van Batavia, and Arun K. Srinivasan each declare no potential conflicts of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Endourology
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bowen, D.K., Van Batavia, J.P. & Srinivasan, A.K. Single-Site Laparoscopy and Robotic Surgery in Pediatric Urology. Curr Urol Rep 19, 42 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-018-0794-z
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-018-0794-z