title: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic approaches to the ureter: Pyeloplasty and ureteral reimplantation.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The benefits of robotic surgery when compared to standard laparoscopy have been well established, especially when it comes to reconstructive procedures. The application of robotic technology to laparoscopic pyeloplasty has reduced the steep learning curve associated with the procedure. Consequently, this has allowed surgeons who are less experienced with laparoscopy to offer this treatment to their patients, instead of referring them to centers of excellence. Robotic pyeloplasty has also proved useful for repairing secondary UPJO, a procedure which is considered extremely difficult using a conventional laparoscopic approach. Finally, the pursuit of scarless surgery has seen the development of laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) procedures. The application of robotics to LESS (R-LESS) has also reduced the difficulty in performing conventional LESS pyeloplasty. Herein we present a literature review with regards to robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. We also discuss the benefits of robotic surgery with regards to reconstruction of the lower urinary tract.
  
  
  METHODS
  A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed to identify relevant studies. There were no time restrictions applied to the search, but only studies in English were included. We utilized the following search terms: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction and laparoscopy; laparoscopic pyeloplasty; robotic pyeloplasty; robotic ureteric reimplantation; robotic ureteroneocystostomy; robotic boari flap; robotic psoas hitch.
  
  
  RESULTS
  There has been considerable experience in the literature with robotic pyeloplasty. Unfortunately, no prospective randomized studies have been conducted, however there are a number of meta analyses and systematic reviews. While there are no clear benefits when it comes to surgical and functional outcomes when compared to standard laparoscopic pyeloplasty, it is clear that robotics makes the operation easier to perform. There is also a benefit to the robotic approach when performing a redo-pyeloplasty. Robotic pyeloplasty has also been applied to the pediatric population, and there may be a benefit in older children while in very young patients, retroperitoneal open pyeloplasty is still the gold standard. In the field of single incision surgery R-LESS is technically easier to perform than conventional LESS. However, the design of the current robotic platform is not completely suited for this application, limiting its utility and often requiring a larger incision. Optimized R-LESS specific technology is awaited. What is clear, from a number of analyses, is that robotic pyeloplasty is considerably more expensive than the laparoscopic approach, largely due to costs of instrumentation and the capital expense of the robot. Until cheaper robotic technology is available, this technique will continue to be expensive, and a cost-benefit analysis must be undertaken by each hospital planning to undertake this surgery. Finally, the benefits of upper tract reconstruction apply equally to the lower tract although there is considerably less experience. However, there have been a number of studies demonstrating the technical feasibility of ureteral reimplantation.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty is gaining popularity, likely due to the shorter learning curve, greater surgeon comfort, and easier intracorporeal suturing. This has allowed more surgeons to perform the procedure, improving accessibility. Robotic technology is also beneficial in the field of LESS. Nevertheless, the procedure still is not as cost-effective as the conventional laparoscopic approach, and until more affordable robotic technology is available, it will not be universally offered.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Glickman Urologic and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
authors.forename: Dinesh
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Samarasekera
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Glickman Urologic and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
authors.forename: Robert J
authors.initials: RJ
authors.lastname: Stein
keywords: Laparoendoscopic single site pyeloplasty; robotic pyeloplasty; ureteropelvic junction obstruction
references.citation: BJU Int. 2011 Mar;107(5):811-815
references.pmid: 20804488
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2011 Nov;60(5):998-1005
references.pmid: 21684069
references.citation: J Urol. 2013 Apr;189(4):1352-7
references.pmid: 23063631
references.citation: J Urol. 2011 Jun;185(6):2196-200
references.pmid: 21497846
references.citation: Pediatr Nephrol. 1995 Aug;9(4):503-9
references.pmid: 7577420
references.citation: J Am Coll Surg. 2009 Apr;208(4):576-86
references.pmid: 19476793
references.citation: Urology. 2010 Dec;76(6):1279-82
references.pmid: 20980046
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2012 Jul;62(1):175-9
references.pmid: 22469392
references.citation: J Urol. 1995 Nov;154(5):1889-93
references.pmid: 7563377
references.citation: J Endourol. 2005 Apr;19(3):327-32
references.pmid: 15865522
references.citation: Urology. 2012 Mar;79(3):689-94
references.pmid: 22386423
references.citation: J Urol. 2011 Apr;185(4):1455-60
references.pmid: 21334663
references.citation: Indian J Urol. 2013 Jan;29(1):19-21
references.pmid: 23671359
references.citation: J Endourol. 2012 Aug;26(8):1044-8
references.pmid: 22494052
references.citation: Curr Urol Rep. 2012 Jun;13(3):190-4
references.pmid: 22528117
references.citation: J Endourol. 2007 Sep;21(9):1045-51; discussion 1051
references.pmid: 17941785
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2012 Feb;61(2):410-4
references.pmid: 22036645
references.citation: BJU Int. 2009 Feb;103(3):366-9
references.pmid: 18778353
references.citation: J Urol. 1994 Dec;152(6 Pt 1):1967-9
references.pmid: 7966651
references.citation: Can J Urol. 2010 Feb;17(1):5012-6
references.pmid: 20156381
references.citation: Urology. 2008 Jul;72(1):47-50; discussion 50
references.pmid: 18384858
references.citation: Int J Urol. 2008 Jun;15(6):490-4
references.pmid: 18422578
references.citation: J Urol. 2013 Jan;189(1):283-7
references.pmid: 23174238
references.citation: BJU Int. 2007 Oct;100(4):880-5
references.pmid: 17535275
references.citation: Urology. 2002 Sep;60(3):509-13
references.pmid: 12350499
references.citation: J Urol. 2012 Sep;188(3):913-8
references.pmid: 22819404
references.citation: Urology. 2006 Mar;67(3):599-602
references.pmid: 16504272
references.citation: J Endourol. 2012 Feb;26(2):147-51
references.pmid: 22050486
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2010 Jan;57(1):132-6
references.pmid: 19361916
references.citation: J Urol. 1993 Dec;150(6):1795-9
references.pmid: 8230507
references.citation: J Endourol. 2008 Sep;22(9):2153-9
references.pmid: 18811572
references.citation: J Urol. 2008 Oct;180(4):1391-6
references.pmid: 18707739
references.citation: JSLS. 2005 Jul-Sep;9(3):258-61
references.pmid: 16121867
references.citation: Urology. 2010 Dec;76(6):1387-93
references.pmid: 20350753
references.citation: J Endourol. 2009 Jun;23(6):945-8
references.pmid: 19473061
references.citation: Indian J Surg. 2011 Aug;73(4):264-7
references.pmid: 22851839
references.citation: J Urol. 2004 Jun;171(6 Pt 2):2629-31
references.pmid: 15118437
references.citation: Urology. 2011 Mar;77(3):730-4
references.pmid: 21167564
references.citation: Ann Surg. 2006 Apr;243(4):486-91
references.pmid: 16552199
references.citation: J Urol. 1992 Sep;148(3):775-82; discussion 782-3
references.pmid: 1512824
references.citation: J Endourol. 2010 Sep;24(9):1447-50
references.pmid: 20677915
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2002 Nov;42(5):453-7; discussion 457-8
references.pmid: 12429153
references.citation: J Endourol. 2013 Mar;27(3):318-23
references.pmid: 22967284
references.citation: Urology. 1995 Dec;46(6):791-5
references.pmid: 7502417
references.citation: J Endourol. 2012 Aug;26(8):971-4
references.pmid: 22260717
references.citation: J Urol. 2006 Feb;175(2):683-7; discussion 687
references.pmid: 16407025
references.citation: Urology. 2003 Feb;61(2):291-6
references.pmid: 12597933
references.citation: Urology. 2008 Dec;72(6):1190-3
references.pmid: 19041022
references.citation: Urology. 2012 Feb;79(2):351-5
references.pmid: 22173173
references.citation: J Pediatr Urol. 2012 Aug;8(4):354-8
references.pmid: 21802371
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2009 Nov;56(5):848-57
references.pmid: 19359084
references.citation: Urology. 2009 Jan;73(1):115-8
references.pmid: 18950836
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2010 Nov;58(5):711-8
references.pmid: 20800338
references.citation: J Urol. 2012 Feb;187(2):522-7
references.pmid: 22177178