Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

References

• Carr MC, Casale P. Anomalies and surgery of the ureter in children. In Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, editors. Campbell–Walsh urology. 10th ed. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 2011. p 3212–35.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer JJ, Bishoff JT, Moore RG, Chen RN, Iverson AJ, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: assessment of objective and subjective outcome. J Urol 1999;162:692–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klingler HC, Remzi M, Janetschek G, Kratzik C, Marberger MJ. Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol 2003;44:340–5.
   Google Scholar
• Neheman A, Noh PH, Piaggio L, González R. The role of laparoscopic surgery for urinary tract reconstruction in infants weighing less than 10 kg: a comparison with open surgery. J Pediatr Urol 2008;4:192–6.
   Google Scholar
• Eichel L, Ahlering TE, Clayman RV. Role of robotics in laparoscopic urologic surgery. Urol Clin North Am 2004;31:781–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Link RE, Bhayani SB, Kavoussi LR. A prospective comparison of robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Ann Surg 2006;243:486–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hemal AK, Mukherjee S, Singh K. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus robotic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a series of 60 cases performed by a single surgeon. Can J Urol 2010;17:5012–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bird VG, Leveillee RJ, Eldefrawy A, Bracho J, Aziz MS. Comparison of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a single-center study. Urology 2011;77:730–4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braga LH, 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;56:848–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gettman MT, Peschel R, Neururer R, Bartsch G. A comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed with the daVinci robotic system versus standard laparoscopic techniques: initial clinical results. Eur Urol 2002;42:453–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernie JE, Venkatesh R, Brown J, Gardner TA, Sundaram CP. Comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty with and without robotic assistance. JSLS 2005;9:258–61.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Atug F, Burgess S, Mendez-Torres F, Castle E, Thomas R. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: comparing daVinci robotic to classic laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Eur Urol Suppl 2005;4:196.
   Google Scholar
• Bhayani SB, Link RE, Varkarakis JM, Kavoussi LR. Complete daVinci versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty: cost analysis. J Endourol 2005;19:327–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weise ES, Winfield HN. Robotic computer-assisted pyeloplasty versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2006;20:813–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franco I, Dyer LL, Zelkovic P. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient: hand sewn anastomosis versus robotic assisted anastomosis – is there a difference? J Urol 2007;178:1483–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim S, Canter D, Leone N, Patel R, Casale P. A comparative study between laparoscopic and robotically assisted pyeloplasty in the pediatric population. J Urol 2008;179:357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Health Research Institute website http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm. Accessed September 28, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 2009;250:187–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yanke BV, Lallas CD, Pagnani C, McGinnis DE, Bagley DH. The minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a review of our experience during the last decade. J Urol 2008;180:1397–402.
   Google Scholar
• Leveillee R, Bracho J, Aziz M, Bird V. Comparison of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a single center study by two surgeons. J Endourol 2009;23:124.
   Google Scholar
• Danuser H, Stucki P, Mattei A. Results of conventional (LPP) and robot assisted (RALPP) laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol 2010;183:282–3.
   Google Scholar
• García-Galisteo E, Emmanuel-Tejero E, Morales-Jimenez P, Morales-Jiménez D, Hernández-Alcaraz E, Vivas-Vargas O, et al. Comparison between conventional and robotics laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Eur Urol Suppl 2010;9:505.
   Google Scholar
• Subotic U, Rohard I, Weber DM, Gobet R, Moehrlen U, Gonzalez R. A minimal invasive surgical approach for children of all ages with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Pediatr Urol 2011;8:354–8.
   Google Scholar
• García-Galisteo E, Emmanuel-Tejero E, Navarro Vílchez P, García-Galisteo J, Baena-González V. Comparison of the operation time and complications between conventional and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Actas Urol Esp 2011;35:523–8.
   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;61:410–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucas SM, Sundaram CP, Wolf JS Jr, Leveillee RJ, Bird VG, Aziz M, et al. Factors that impact the outcome of minimally invasive pyeloplasty: results of the Multi-institutional Laparoscopic and Robotic Pyeloplasty Collaborative Group. J Urol 2012;187:522–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schünemann HJ, Jaeschke R, Cook DJ, Bria WF, El-Solh AA, Ernst A, et al. An official ATS statement: grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines and recommendations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006;174:605–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agcaoglu O, Aliyev S, Karabulut K, Mitchell J, Siperstein A, Berber E. Robotic versus laparoscopic resection of large adrenal tumors. Ann Surg Oncol 2012;19:2288–94.
   Google Scholar
• Pineda-Solís K, Medina-Franco H, Heslin MJ. Robotic versus laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a comparative study in a high-volume center. Surg Endosc 2013;27:599–602.
   Google Scholar
• Madi R, Roberts WW, Wolf JS Jr. Late failures after laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Urology 2008;71:677–80.
   Google Scholar
• Psooy K, Pike JG, Leonard MP. Long-term followup of pediatric dismembered pyeloplasty: how long is long enough? J Urol 2003;169:1809–12.
   Google Scholar
• Eden C, Gianduzzo T, Chang C, Thiruchelvam N, Jones A. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary and secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 2004;172:2308–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inagaki T, Rha KH, Ong AM, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: current status. BJU Int 2005;95:102–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soulié M, Salomon L, Patard JJ, Mouly P, Manunta A, Antiphon P, et al. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a multicenter study of 55 procedures. J Urol 2001;166:48–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar