Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: current status and future directions

References

• Brooks JD, Kavoussi LR, Preminger GM, Schuessler WW, Moore RG. Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urology. 1995;46:791–795.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Reilly PH, Brooman PJ, Mak S, et al. The long-term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. BJU Int. 2001;87(4):287–289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh I, Hemal AK. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. In: Hemal AK, Menon M, editors. Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery. London: Springer; 2011:445–465.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson JC, Hynes W. Plastic operation for hydronephrosis. Proc R Soc Med. 1951;44(1):4–5.
   Google Scholar
• Kavoussi LR, Peters CA. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150(6):1891–1894.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150(6):1795–1799.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bansal P, Gupta A, Mongha R, et al. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: comparison of two surgical approaches - a single centre experience of three years. J Minim Access Surg. 2008;4:76.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs BL, Kaufman SR, Morgenstern H, Hollenbeck BK, Wolf JS Jr, Hollingsworth JM. Trends in the treatment of adults with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Endourol. 2013;27(3):355–360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(2):430–452.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boylu U, Basatac C, Turan T, Onol FF, Gumus E. Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of minimally invasive and open pyeloplasty. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012;22(10):968–971.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gettman M, Peschel R, Neururer R, Bartsch G. A comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed with the da Vinci robotic system versus standard laparoscopic techniques: initial clinical results. Eur Urol. 2002;42(5):453–457.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Link RE, Bhayani SB, Kavoussi LR. A prospective comparison of robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Ann Surg. 2006;243(4):486–491.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braga LHP, 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;56:848–858.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhayani SB, Link RE, Varkarakis JM, Kavoussi LR. Complete da Vinci versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty: cost analysis. J Endourol. 2005;19:327–332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bansal D, Defoor WR Jr, Reddy PP, Minevich EA, Noh PH. Complications of robotic surgery in pediatric urology: a single institution experience. Urology. 2013;82(4):917–920.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballouhey Q, Villemagne T, Cros J, et al. A comparison of robotic surgery in children weighing above and below 15.0 kg: size does not affect surgery success. Surg Endosc. Epub December 6, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Kallidonis P, Kontogiannis S, Kyriazis I, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in kidney surgery: clinical experience and future perspectives. Curr Urol Rep. 2013;14(5):496–505.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaouk JH, Goel RK, Haber GP, Crouzet S, Stein RJ. Robotic single-port transumbilical surgery in humans: initial report. BJU Int. 2009;103(3):366–369.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Autorino R, Stein RJ, Lima E, et al. Current status and future perspectives in laparoendoscopic single-site and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic urological surgery. Int J Urol. 2010;17(5):410–431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cestari A, Buffi NM, Lista G, et al. Feasibility and preliminary clinical outcomes of robotic laparoendoscopic singlesite (R-LESS) pyeloplasty using a new single-port platform. Eur Urol. 2012;62:175–179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tobis S, Houman J, Thomer M, Rashid H, Wu G. Robot-assisted transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty: technique and perioperative outcomes from a single institution. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2013;23(8):702–706.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Autorino R, Kaouk JH, Stolzenburg JU, et al. Current status and future directions of robotic single-site surgery: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2013;63(2):266–280.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiori C, Morra I, Bertolo R, Mele F, Chiarissi ML, Porpiglia F. Standard vs mini-laparoscopic pyeloplasty: perioperative outcomes and cosmetic results. BJU Int. 2013;111(3 pt B):E121–E126.
   Google Scholar
• Simforoosh N, Abedi A, Hosseini Sharifi SH, et al. Comparison of surgical outcomes and cosmetic results between standard and mini laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children younger than 1 year of age. J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10(5):819–823.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mufarrij PW, Woods M, Shah OD, et al. Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience. J Urol. 2008;180:1391–1396.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivaraman A, Leveillee RJ, Patel MB, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a multi-institutional experience. Urology. 2012;79:351–355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buffi NM, Lughezzani G, Fossati N, et al. Robot-assisted, single-site, dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction with the new da Vinci Platform: a stage 2a study. Eur Urol. 2015;67(1):151–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olweny EO, Park SK, Tan YK, Gurbuz C, Cadeddu JA, Best SL. Perioperative comparison of robotic assisted laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) pyeloplasty versus conventional LESS pyeloplasty. Eur Urol. 2012;61:410–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar