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: 3.42). 07/2006; 24(2):198-201. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-006-0099-6
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

Download full-text


Available from: James O Peabody, Jun 22, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Robot-assisted partial nephrectomyRobot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) was first described in 2004 by Gettman et al.[26] It has since enjoyed widespread adoption at many high-volume centres. Recent evidence suggests that RAPN offers equivalent oncological control to open partial nephrectomy (OPN) and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) while providing the additional benefit of shorter hospital stay, less intraoperative EBL and shorter warm ischaemia time (WIT).[27] In an analysis of over 100 RAPN and LPN cases, no significant difference was found in the rate of focal positive margins between the two modalities. [28] While it may be too early to assess long-term oncological control in this relatively new surgical technique, early results from a series of 100 RAPN showed no tumour recurrence at 12 months.[29] Intraoperative EBL during partial nephrectomy has been shown to be an accurate predictor of early and late recovery of kidney function,[30] and considering that 26% of patients undergoing partial or radical nephrectomy have some degree of renal impairment preoperatively, [31] RAPN holds the promise of better long-term nephron preservation. Studies also show that RAPN generally provides shorter WIT as compared to LPN. [27] This seems to hold true even in cases that require calyceal repair, have complex renal tumours or have multiple tumours.[27] New evidence reveals that RAPN has a relatively short learning curve with regard to parameters such as acceptable WIT and total operative time.[3] All the aforementioned advantages suggest, in our opinion, that RAPN will garner widespread acceptance as the minimally invasive treatment of choice for small renal masses. Figure 1 shows a stepwise demonstration of RAPN.Figure 1Stepwise demonstration of robot assisted partial nephrectomy; (a) Dissected renal hilum demonstrating renal artery (RA) and renal vein (RV); (b) Dissected renal tumor and renal scoring performed prior to clamping the RA; (c) View showing the renal parenchyma ...Early results from trials of selective renal artery clamping in efforts to further decrease renal ischaemic damage have been promising and are especially attractive in patients with already compromised kidney function. [32] We recently compared the efficacy of clamping the renal artery alone versus both the renal artery and vein in 95 patients and found that clamping only the renal artery was associated with decreased EBL, decreased WIT, decreased operative time and less increase in serum creatinine (unpublished data). The feasibility of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) for RAPN was recently assessed in a porcine model and while WIT was within acceptable standards, the great technical and surgical difficulty conferred with existing robotic instrumentation made the procedure especially laborious. [33] We believe that significant modifications in robotic design are necessary before such techniques are ready to enter the mainstream.
    Urology Annals 02/2011; 3(1):1-7. DOI:10.4103/0974-7796.75853
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Zusammenfassung Einleitung: Die zunehmende Verbreitung und technische Verbesserung endourologischer Therapiemethoden hat in den letzten Jahren zu einer Verdrängung der früher standardmäßig durchgeführten operativen Harnsteinentfernung aus der klinischen Praxis geführt. Material und Methodik: Anhand einer ausgedehnten Literaturanalyse werden Indikationen, Techniken und klinische Bedeutung der offen-chirurgischen und laparoskopischen Harnsteintherapie dargestellt. Ergebnisse: Bei sehr großen oder harten Steinen, in Fällen, in denen extrakorporale Stoßwellenlithotripsie (ESWL), perkutane Nephrolitholapaxie („percutaneous nephrolithotomy“, PCNL) oder ureterorenoskopische Steinentfernung (URS) versagt haben, sowie bei Anomalien in Aufbau oder Lage der Nieren spielt die chirurgische Steintherapie auch heute noch eine Rolle. Dies betrifft jedoch nur wenige Prozent aller Patienten mit Urolithiasis in Europa und Nordamerika. In Ländern der Dritten Welt und in Schwellenländern mit geringer Verfügbarkeit der Methoden der Endourologie sowie anderer Struktur und Finanzierung des Gesundheitssystems besitzt die chirurgische Steintherapie nach wie vor einen höheren Stellenwert. Besonders in Europa verdrängt die Laparoskopie zunehmend die offen-chirurgische Lithotomie, da über einen trans- oder retroperitonealen Zugang Steine aus fast allen Lokalisationen in Niere und Harnleiter entfernt werden können. Funktionelle Ergebnisse und Komplikationsraten sind hierbei vergleichbar. Die Laparoskopie bietet in Hinblick auf den postoperativen Schmerz, die Dauer des Klinikaufenthaltes, die Rekonvaleszenz und das kosmetische Ergebnis Vorteile. Schlussfolgerung: Obwohl die offen-chirurgische und laparoskopische Harnsteinentfernung hierzulande nur noch selten in der klinischen Routine durchgeführt werden, gibt es Fälle, in denen sie der endourologischen Steintherapie überlegen sind. Deshalb sollten diese Methoden nach wie vor beherrscht werden.
    Der Urologe 05/2008; 47(5):578-586. DOI:10.1007/s00120-008-1734-1 · 0.44 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Staghorn stones represent a therapeutic challenge to urologists. We present our experience with laparoscopic extended pyelolithotomy for treatment of staghorn and complex renal calculi in highly selected cases. This approach provides the principles of open surgery with the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. We describe our experience with robot-assisted extended pyelolithotomy for complex coralliform calculi. Since January 2007, robotic extended pyelolithotomy has been performed by transperitoneal approach in two patients with complete coralliform lithiasis (calculi average size 8cm). One patient had history of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Demographic and operative data were collected. All procedures were technically successful without need for open conversion. Mean estimated blood loss was 175ml (range 50–300ml), and mean operative time was 150min (range 120–150min). A perinephric drain was employed in one patient with duration of 5days. Postoperative imaging confirmed complete stone clearance. Robotic extended pyelolithotomy is a feasible and reproducible procedure for removal of complete and partial staghorn calculi in selected patients with complex nephrolithiasis. This approach might limit the role of open surgery for these calculi, but further publications with more cases are necessary to further define its utility. KeywordsRobotic-Pyelolithotomy-Staghorn calculus-Nephrolithiasis
    Journal of Robotic Surgery 08/2010; 4(2):99-102. DOI:10.1007/s11701-010-0192-0