Reconstructive laparoscopy in pediatric urology

Minimally Invasive versus Open Ureteral Reimplantation in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

 We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus open ureteral reimplantation (OUR) in children.

METHODS

 Literature searches were conducted to identify studies that compared MIS (laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation or robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral replantation) and OUR in children. Parameters such as operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, success rate, postoperative urinary tract infection (UTI), urinary retention, postoperative hematuria, wound infection, and overall postoperative complications were pooled and compared by meta-analysis.

RESULTS

 Among the 7,882 pediatric participants in the 14 studies, 852 received MIS, and 7,030 received OUR. When compared with the OUR, the MIS approach resulted in shorter hospital stays (I 2 = 99%, weighted mean difference [WMD] -2.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.22 to -1.41; p < 0.001), less blood loss (I 2 = 100%, WMD -12.65, 95% CI -24.82 to -0.48; p = 0.04), and less wound infection (I 2 = 0%, odds ratio 0.23, 95% CI 0.06-0.78; p = 0.02). However, no significant difference was found in operative time and secondary outcomes such as postoperative UTI, urinary retention, postoperative hematuria, and overall postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

 MIS is a safe, feasible, and effective surgical procedure in children when compared with OUR. Compared with OUR, MIS has a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss, and less wound infection. Furthermore, MIS is equivalent to OUR in terms of success rate and secondary outcomes such as postoperative UTI, urinary retention, postoperative hematuria, and overall postoperative complications. We conclude that MIS should be considered an acceptable option for pediatric ureteral reimplantation.

Efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopic, laparoscopic and open surgery in ureteral reimplantation: a network meta-analysis and systematic review

To compare the efficacy and safety between open ureteral replantation (OUR), laparoscopic ureteral replantation (LUR) and robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral replantation (RALUR). This review produced by the R3.5.0 software with "gemtc" program package and JAGS3.4.0 software based on the Bayesian model. A comprehensive search was done in databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane library, Cnki, CBM and WANFANG DATA. Studies that compared OUR, LUR OR RALUR were selected. Summary of Conclusions by ranking of Outcomes. A total of 3949 patients from 29 studies were included. The success rate in OUR, LUR and RALUR was 97.72%, 94.68% and 95.82%. The OR (95% CI) of LUR and RALUR was 0.76 (0.42,1.7) and 0.76 (0.30, 2.6), respectively, compared with OUR. The rate of complications in OUR, LUR and RALUR was 12.78%, 7.94% and 16.32%. The OR (95% CI) of LUR and RALUR was 0.28 (0.16, 0.48) and 0.61 (0.24,1.3), respectively, compared with OUR. The MD (95% CI) of LUR and RALUR for operation time was 22 (2,40) and 46 (7.5,84), respectively, compared with OUR. The MD (95% CI) of LUR and RALUR for hospital stay was - 3.6 (- 4.5, - 2.7) and - 1.1 (- 2.9, 0.58), respectively, compared with OUR. There is no significant difference in the success rates of OUR, LUR, and RALUR. RALUR and OUR has similar complication rates and time of hospital stay, while LUR has fewer complications and faster time to discharge compared to RALUR and OUR. The operative time of OUR is significantly less compared to LUR and RALUR.

Complications of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Children: A Prospective Morbidity and Mortality Analysis Using the Clavien-Dindo Classification

There is a lack of information about evaluation of pediatric minimal access surgery complications; the Clavien-Dindo classification was never used for a large series of laparoscopic and thoracoscopic pediatric procedures. With a prospective Morbidity and Mortality database, all the minimal access surgical procedures carried out between 2012 and 2016 were included in this study. Statistical analyses were used to valuate modification of surgical techniques in to 2 periods (period 1: January 2012 to February 2014; period 2: February 2014 to February 2016). A total of 1374 minimal access procedures were performed on 1371 patients. The overall complication rate was 2.9%. No differences, in terms of complications, were observed between elective and emergency procedures (P=0.3). There was a significant difference between the complication rate of thoracoscopic surgery (P=0.027). These results provide the relevance of adequate recording system and standardized classification for analyses and reduction of complications for pediatric minimal access procedures.

STPEDISET: A novel innovation for percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to report the outcomes of PCNL in patients in whom the Short and Thin Pediatric Set (ST PEDISET) had been used.

METHODS

Data from 21 patients (11 boys and 10 girls) who underwent PCNL for renal stones using the ST PEDISET between April 2013 and February 2015 were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were evaluated by plane radiography and USG after surgery.

RESULTS

In total 21 children (11 boys and 10 girls) with a median age of 13months (range 5months to 4years) who underwent PCNL were included in the study. The median stone burden was 16mm (range 10-36mm). The success rate was 85.7%. Sixteen patients (76.2%) were stone free and two patients (9.5%) had clinically insignificant residual fragments (CIRF). The median length of hospital stay was 4days (range 2-9days).

CONCLUSIONS

The data of this study clearly show that the ST PEDISET is safe, effective and ergonomic for percutaneous nephrolithotomy in preschool-age children. This study indicates the need for randomized trials on larger cohorts to confirm these findings, and thus improve the surgical procedure.

Vesicoscopic bladder neck procedure in children: what we have learned from the first series

OBJECTIVE

To assess the results of endoscopic bladder neck procedure on the anterior bladder wall in children.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Surgery is done in the lithotomy position using three 5-mm ports. The bladder is insufflated with CO2. A U-shaped incision is made around the bladder neck. A mucosal strip is tabularized around a 12 French catheter and covered with the second layer of mucosa. Twenty procedures were performed on 18 patients (mean age, 9.8 years), and the follow-up period was >1 year (mean, 34 months). Mean operation time was 149 minutes. Twelve patients had neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction. Fifteen patients failed earlier bladder neck surgery, predominantly fascia sling suspension. Preoperatively, all patients had low detrusor leak point pressure. Clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) was resumed through the urethra in 11 patients and through a stoma in 6 patients.

RESULTS

Two patients needed conversion because of CO2 leakage. Six patients were dry, and 4 improved in the short term (3-6 months). After 1 year of follow-up, 2 patients were dry, and 6 improved. In the long term, 1 (9%) out of 11 patients who were catheterized through the urethra was dry, and 3 of the 11 patients (27%) improved. Of the 6 patients with a CIC stoma, 1 (17%) was dry, and 3 (50%) improved.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic bladder neck surgery is, for most patients, a minor operation, but the long-term results are disappointing. The construction of a continent channel for CIC can improve the outcome when anterior bladder neck plasty is performed.

How to successfully implement a robotic pediatric surgery program: lessons learned after 96 procedures

BACKGROUND

Both our teams were the first to implement pediatric robotic surgery in France. The aim of this study was to define the key points we brought to light so other pediatric teams that want to set up a robotic surgery program will benefit.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of all children who underwent robotic surgery between Nov 2007 and June 2011 in both departments, including patient data, installation and changes, operative time, hospital stay, intraoperative complications, and postoperative outcome. The department's internal organization, the organization within the hospital complex, and cost were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 96 procedures were evaluated. There were 38 girls and 56 boys with average age at surgery of 7.6 years (range, 0.7-18 years) and average weight of 26 kg (range, 6-77 kg). Thirty-six patients had general surgery, 57 patients urologic surgery, and 1 thoracic surgery. Overall average operative time was 189 min (range, 70-550 min), and average hospital stay was 6.4 days (range, 2-24 days). The procedures of 3 patients were converted. Median follow-up was 18 months (range, 0.5-43 months). Robotic surgical procedure had an extra cost of <euro>1934 compared to conventional open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience was similar to the findings described in the literature for feasibility, security, and patient outcomes; we had an overall operative success rate of 97 %. Three main actors are concerned in the implementation of a robotic pediatric surgery program: surgeons and anesthetists, nurses, and the administration. The surgeon is at the starting point with motivation for minimally invasive surgery without laparoscopic constraints. We found that it was possible to implement a long-lasting robotic surgery program with comparable quality of care.

Parent and patient perceptions of robotic vs open urological surgery scars in children

PURPOSE

Cumulative evidence shows that robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery is safe and at least as efficacious as open surgery for several pediatric urological procedures. Scars resulting from robotic surgery are often assumed to have a cosmetic advantage. However, no study has clearly demonstrated that parents and patients consistently prefer such scars.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed 3 distinct surveys consisting of photographs and diagrams of scars resulting from open and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery for ureteral reimplantation, pyeloplasty and bladder augmentation. Surveys were distributed to parents of patients being evaluated for 1 of the 3 procedures. The surveys evaluated information such as scar preference, reason for preference and demographics. Patients older than 7 years also completed surveys.

RESULTS

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgical scars were preferred by parents for all procedures studied (85% for ureteral reimplant, 63% for pyeloplasty and 93% for bladder augmentation). Patients also preferred the robotic scars (76%, 62% and 91%, respectively). Patients and parents did not differ significantly in scar preference or in rating of factors affecting decision. Scar size was important or very important to 80% of parents for reimplant, 83% for pyeloplasty and 86% for bladder augmentation. However, the majority of parents would ultimately base their choice of surgical approach on clinical efficacy rather than scar preference.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents and patients prefer robot-assisted laparoscopic surgical scars to open surgical scars for pediatric ureteral reimplantation, pyeloplasty and bladder augmentation. Scar appearance is an important influence on the decisions of parents and patients, and should be discussed when surgical treatment is presented.