Robotic extended pyelolithotomy for treatment of renal calculi: A feasibility study
Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Hospital, K-9 Urology, 2799 W. Grand Blvd, Detroit, MI 48202, USA.World Journal of Urology (Impact Factor: 2.67). 07/2006; 24(2):198-201. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-006-0099-6
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) remains the treatment of choice for staghorn renal calculi. Many reports suggest that laparoscopy can be an alternative treatment for large renal stones. We wished to evaluate the role and feasibility of laparoscopic extended pyelolithotomy (REP) for treatment of staghorn calculi. Thirteen patients underwent REP for treatment of staghorn calculi over a 12-day period. Twelve patients had partial staghorn stones and one had a complete staghorn stone. All patients had pre-operative and post-operative imaging including KUB and computed tomography. All procedures were completed robotically without conversion to laparoscopy or open surgery. Mean operative time was 158 min and mean robotic console time was 108 min. Complete stone removal was accomplished in all patients except the one with a complete staghorn calculus. Estimated blood loss was 100 cc, and no patient required post-operative transfusion. REP is an effective treatment alternative to PCNL in some patients with staghorn calculi. However, patients with complete staghorn stones are not suitable candidates for this particular technique.
Full-textDOI: · Available from: James O Peabody, Jun 22, 2014
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Percutaneous nephrolithotomy is the current treatment of choice for large renal stones but robot-assisted extended pyelolithotomy (REP) provides an appealing option in cases of staghorn calculi and in patients undergoing concurrent RAP.[42–43] Hemal and coworkers found that in six patients who underwent REP or robot assisted pyelolithotomy, the mean operative time was 106 minutes and EBL was less than 50 ml in all cases.  One patient required conversion to an open procedure because the renal calculus could not be localised. "
ABSTRACT: Robotic surgery is a cutting edge and minimally invasive procedure, which has generated a great deal of excitement in the urologic community. While there has been much advancement in this emerging technology, it is safe to say that robotic urologic surgery holds tremendous potential for progress in the near future. Hence, it is paramount that urologists stay up-to-date regarding new developments in the realm of robotics with respect to novel applications, limitations and opportunities for incorporation into their practice. Robot-assisted surgery provides an enhanced 3D view, increased magnification of the surgical field, better manual dexterity, relatively bloodless field, elimination of surgeon′s tremor, reduction in a surgeon′s fatigue and mitigation of scattered light. All these factors translate into greater precision of surgical dissection, which is imperative in providing better intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Pioneering work assessing the feasibility of robotic surgery in urology began in the early 2000′s with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and has since expanded to procedures such as robot-assisted radical cystectomy, robot-assisted partial nephrectomy, robot-assisted nephroureterectomy and robot-assisted pyeloplasty. A MEDLINE search was used to identify recent articles (within the last two years) and publications of specific importance, which highlighted the recent developments and future direction of robotics. This review will use the aforementioned urologic surgeries as vehicles to evaluate the current status and future role of robotics in the advancement of the field of urology.Urology Annals 02/2011; 3(1):1-7. DOI:10.4103/0974-7796.75853
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of LP for large renal stones . The stone - free rates ranged between 88 . 9% and 100% [ Salvado et al . 2009 ; Badani et al . 2006 ; Nambirajan et al . 2005 ] ."
ABSTRACT: To date, most cases of renal calculi have been managed with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and endoscopic procedures. However, for complex renal stone conditions, these minimally invasive procedures may require multiple operative sessions. Open surgery is usually reserved as a salvage procedure, although it is invasive in nature. Laparoscopic treatment is well accepted in renal surgery. For stone disease, it can duplicate open surgical techniques such as pyelolithotomy, pyeloplasty, anatrophic nephrolithotomy, caliceal diverticulectomy and nephrectomy. Although the laparoscopic techniques for stone treatment are quite challenging, it is both feasible and safe. Laparoscopic treatment is a viable option for large renal stone treatment with an excellent stone-free rate, especially when patients require their stones to be treated within a single session. However, it is more invasive in nature than endourology procedures and so should be reserved as the last resort option for renal stone management in the modern endourology era.Therapeutic Advances in Urology 02/2011; 3(1):13-8. DOI:10.1177/1756287211398254
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Robotic surgery today has made a successful transition into mainstream clinical urological practice, providing minimally invasive surgical treatment options for complex extirpative and reconstructive procedures. It has particularly dominated urologic pelvic surgery including radical prostatectomy, radical cystectomy, and many gynecologic procedures (Menon M, Hemal AK, J Endourol 18(7):611–619, 2004; Hemal AK, Abol-Enein H, Shrivastava A, Shoma AM, Ghoneim MA, Menon M, Urol Clin North Am 31(4):719–729, 2004; Hemal AK, Kolla SB, Wadhwa P, J Urol 180(3):981–985, 2008]. It has successfully been employed in kidney surgery as well, especially donor nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy, and pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) (Phillips CK, Taneja SS, Stifelman MD, J Endourol 19:441–445, 2005; Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R, Urology 60:509–513, 2002). While urolithiasis is largely treated with shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and endourological surgery (ureteroscopy [URS] and percutaneous nephrolithotomy [PCNL]), the role of laparoscopy has been explored as an alternative tool in managing urinary stone disease.Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy proved to be a viable alternative to open surgery, helping avoid incision related morbidity in candidates with impacted, large ureteral calculi which had failed an attempt at endourological management (Hemal AK, Goel A, Kumar M, Gupta NP, J Endourol 15(7):701–705, 2001). Laparoscopic stone surgery soon gained acceptance as a complementary minimally invasive technique, specifically to be used in the occasional case considered for open surgery. Stones in anteriorly placed calyceal diverticulum, pelvic stones in ectopic kidneys, assisting percutaneous access in ectopic kidneys formed some of the other indications for laparoscopic stone interventions (Ramakumar S, Segura JW, J Endourol 14(10):829–832, 2000). The use of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy was avidly contested with some authors extolling its virtues as an alternative to PCNL in medium-sized renal calculi unsuitable for SWL therapy and unfavorable calyceal anatomy (Gaur DD, Trivedi S, Prabhudesai MR, Gopichand M, J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 12(4):299–303, 2002; Yagisawa T, Ito F, Kobayashi C, Onitsuka S, Kondo T, Goto Y, Toma H, J Endourol 15(5):525–528, 2001); while others, though demonstrating its feasibility, were unable to show its superiority over PCNL vis-à-vis operative time and skill required, cosmesis and relative invasiveness (Goel A, Hemal AK, Int Urol Nephrol 35(1):73–76, 2003).The enhanced reconstructive capabilities of the robotic platform added another dimension to laparoscopic management of stone disease. We first explored the use of robot-assisted renal pelvic calculi retrieval during a concomitant pyeloplasty in February 2003 in Egypt. The experience prompted the genesis of usage of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyelolithotomy, which resulted in the first large series of robotic extended pyelolithotomy (REP) wherein we focused on stone extraction of large renal calculi (partial staghorn calculi), even a complete staghorn calculus (Badani KK, Hemal AK, Fumo M, Kaul S, Shrivastava A, Rajendram AK, Yusoff NA, Sundram M, Woo S, Peabody JO, Mohamed SR, Menon M, World J Urol 24:198–201, 2006). We were successfully able to deal with such large renal pelvic bulky partial staghorn calculi even in cases with intra-renal pelvis, duplicating the technique of extended pyelolithotomy by developing the intrasinus space of Gil-Vernet (Meria P, Milcent S, Desgrandchamps F, Mongiat-Artus P, Duclos JM, Teillac P, Urol Int 75(4):322–326, 2005). The versatility provided by the robot has allowed application of robot-assisted procedures in a variety of indications in managing urinary stone disease at different locations (Table 12.1). Herein we describe our technique of robotic pyelolithotomy and ureterolithotomy.