title: Robot-assisted ureteroneocystostomy: technique and comparative outcomes.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Ureteroneocystostomy can be used for the treatment of patients with a wide variety of ureteral pathology. Over the last decade, robot-assisted surgery has become more commonly used as a minimally invasive approach for reconstructive upper urinary tract procedures. The aim of this study is to present our experience with robot-assisted ureteroneocystosctomy (RUNC) with a comparison with that of open ureteroneocystostomy (OUNC).
  
  
  METHODS
  Medical records of 25 patients who underwent RUNC and 41 patients who underwent OUNC or at our institution between 2000 and 2010 were retrospectively analyzed. Perioperative and postoperative data including demographics, surgical outcomes, and clinical and radiographic findings at postoperative follow-up were considered in the comparative analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to present the data. The significance of the difference between variables was evaluated using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous and Fisher exact test for categorical variables.
  
  
  RESULTS
  No significant differences were detected in terms of baseline patient characteristics between the two groups. The OUNC procedures were performed with a shorter median operative time (200 vs 279 min., P=0.0008), whereas RUNC patients had a shorter hospital stay (median 3 vs 5 days, P=0.0004), less narcotic pain requirement (morphine equivalent, mg 104.6 vs 290, P=0.0001), and less estimated blood loss (100 vs 150 mL, P=<0.0002). There as no significant difference in the rate of reoperation between groups: RUNC 2/25 (7.6 %) vs OUNC 4/41 (9.7%) P=0.8. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the difference in indications for surgery.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  RUNC provides excellent outcomes with shorter hospital stay, less narcotic pain requirement, and decreased blood loss when compared with the open procedure. Advantages of the robotic platform for dissection and suturing can be useful for complex minimally invasive urologic reconstructive procedures.
authors.affiliation: Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
authors.forename: Wahib
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Isac
authors.forename: Jihad
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Kaouk
authors.forename: Fatih
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Altunrende
authors.forename: Emad
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Rizkala
authors.forename: Riccardo
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Autorino
authors.forename: Shahab P
authors.initials: SP
authors.lastname: Hillyer
authors.forename: Humberto
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Laydner
authors.forename: Jean-Alexandre
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Long
authors.forename: Ahmad
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Kassab
authors.forename: Ali
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Khalifeh
authors.forename: Kamol
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Panumatrassamee
authors.forename: Remi
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Eyraud
authors.forename: Tommasso
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Falcone
authors.forename: Georges-Pascal
authors.initials: GP
authors.lastname: Haber
authors.forename: Robert J
authors.initials: RJ
authors.lastname: Stein
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D003559:Cystostomy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D003710:Demography; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011182:Postoperative Care; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000209:etiology; D012371:Robotics; D013524:Surgical Flaps; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014513:Ureter / Q000601:surgery*