Comparison between closed and open techniques for creating a retroperitoneal space for retroperitoneoscopic renal surgery in children

Optical Trocar Access for Retroperitoneal Robotic-Assisted Pyeloplasty in Children with Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction

Purpose: Retroperitoneal robotic-assisted pyeloplasty (ret-RAP) for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) requires a larger retroperitoneal space (RS) to maintain specified distances between robotic (da Vinci) trocars and between trocars and the region of interest. A modified closed technique (MOT) and conventional closed technique (COT) were compared for creating an adequate RS with optical trocars. Methods: RS access in children with UPJO who underwent ret-RAP (n = 30) was MOT (n = 15) and COT (n = 15). All patients were positioned laterally. For MOT, a 5 mm optical trocar was inserted at the angle formed between the 12th rib and the erector spinae muscles. As the trocar was advanced under direct vision, it pierced the superficial subcutaneous layer, Scarpa's fascia, lumbar fascia, internal/external oblique and transversus abdominalis muscles, and the posterior renal fascia. Once in the RS, the tip of the scope was used for blunt dissection of perirenal fat, the tip was withdrawn until it was outside the perirenal fascia, and used to dissect toward the anterior abdomen in the pararenal fat layer. Results: Ages and weights at ret-RAP were similar (MOT: 5.6 ± 1.8 years versus COT: 7.8 ± 4.6 years; MOT: 20.6 ± 10.1 kg versus COT: 27.6 ± 13.9 kg). Times for RS access were similar (MOT: 1.6 ± 0.5 minutes versus COT: 1.9 ± 0.7 minutes), but RS expansion was significantly quicker in MOT (32.3 ± 8.7 minutes versus 52.0 ± 15.1 minutes; P < .001). Peritoneal injury caused carbon dioxide leakage in 4 of 15 COT cases and 0 of 15 MOT cases. Conclusion: RS expansion with MOT was safer because there were no peritoneal injuries and MOT was quicker than COT.

A Pilot Study to Determine the Role of Spatulating the Ureter During Pyeloplasty in Children for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in the Robotic Era

Purpose: Spatulation during ureteropelvic junction obstruction repair was evaluated in children treated by robot-assisted retroperitoneal pyeloplasty anastomosis (RRPA). Methods: Intraoperative video recordings (IVRs) of RRPA (n = 22 ureters) performed at a single institute between 2018 and 2022 were reviewed blindly by 5 independent surgeons for perceived difficulty of suturing (DOS; 5 = impossible; 4 = difficult; 3 = tedious; 2 = slow; 1 = easy) and spatulation ranking as superior (+1), inferior (-1), or unnecessary (0). The retroperitoneal space was accessed in the lateral decubitus position using a closed technique under direct vision to avoid air leakage and subcutaneous emphysema. All subjects had a Double-J stent (4.7F) placed. Results: Subjects had similar demographics and preoperative ureter diameters. IVRs were RRPA with spatulation of the ureter on the lateral side (RRPA +SP) (n = 13) and RRPA without spatulation of the ureter (RRPA -SP) (n = 9). Overall DOS scores and coefficients of variation for time taken to place one suture were similar. Total anastomotic time was significantly shorter for RRPA -SP; 67.9 ± 8.4 minutes versus 57.9 ± 9.2 minutes, P = .01. Overall spatulation ranking was 0. Postoperative scanning showed improved drainage in 12 of 13 (92%) in RRPA +SP and 8 of 9 (88%) in RRPA -SP; differences were not significant. One anastomotic stricture in RRPA -SP required open repair. Conclusions: RRPA was quicker and more precise without spatulation. Outcomes of scanning 1 year after RRPA were similar for RRPA -SP and RRPA +SP.

Retroperitoneoscopic Pyeloplasty for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in Children: Value of Robotic Assistance

AIM

Retroperitoneal pyeloplasty (RP) for pediatric ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) performed using retroperitoneoscopy (retro-RP) or robotic assistance (robo-RP) were compared.

METHODS

All subjects were Japanese, matched for age, weight, and RP diameters. All RP were performed in the lateral decubitus position at a single institute by the same team using identical protocols. Five independent surgeons were asked to score intraoperative video recordings for perceived difficulty of suturing (DOS; 5 = impossible; 4 = difficult; 3 = tedious; 2 = slow; 1 = easy) and rank RP as +1 if robo-RP appeared to be superior, 0 if they appeared to be the same, and -1 if robo-RP appeared to be inferior.

RESULTS

Robo-RP performed 2018-2022 (n = 22) were matched with retro-RP performed 2011-2019 (n = 34). Mean overall operative times were similar (robo-RP: 305.2 ± 57.8 min versus retro-RP: 340.0 ± 117.9 min; p = 0.19), but securing the larger retroperitoneal space required for robo-RP took significantly longer; 50.8 ± 13.9 min versus 24.3 ± 9.6 min; p < 0.0001. Total anastomotic time (TAT) and TAT per suture were both significantly shorter for robo-RP (p < 0.0001). The coefficient of variation for time taken to place one suture was smaller for robo-RP than for retro-RP. DOS was lower for robo-RP with less variance (p < 0.01). Robo-RP had shorter drainage tube insertion, ambulated quicker postoperatively, and shorter hospitalization. Retro-RP had anastomotic complications; leaks (n = 2) and strictures (n = 2, requiring conventional open re-pyeloplasty). Robo-RP had no anastomotic complications and was ranked +1 unanimously.

CONCLUSIONS

The RP anastomosis was quicker with less complications and more precise with robotic assistance in matched patients under similar circumstances. Should RP be indicated, robo-RP is recommended.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Pure Retroperitoneal Optical Access Trocar for Lumbar Diseases in Adults: A Step-by-Step Technique

PURPOSES

The primary end point of this study was to describe step by step the technique of the pure retroperitoneal optical access trocar (PROAT) in adults. The secondary end point was to access between-group differences in perioperative outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-five patients underwent retroperitoneoscopic surgery using the PROAT technique to enter the retroperitoneal space (PROAT group). Thirty-nine patients underwent retroperitoneoscopic surgery using the conventional open-Hasson technique with manufactured Hasson-trocar and space-maker balloon to enter and create the retroperitoneal space (conventional group). PROAT technique was described. Data were prospectively collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Mean time for first-entry trocar insertion was lower in the PROAT group (9.76±3.17 vs. 23±7.2 s; P<0.001). Mean time to develop the retroperitoneal space until all-trocar placement was higher in the PROAT group (12.7±3.3 vs. 6.4±2.2 min; P<0.001). Carbon dioxide gas leakage was not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The PROAT technique is feasible and safe. This approach can potentially avoid carbon dioxide leakage when manufactured Hasson trocars are not available and allow a reduced-cost procedure.