Analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyleloplasty for primary versus secondary repair in 119 consecutive cases

Ben E. Niver, Ilir Agalliu, Romy Bareket, Patrick Mufarrij, Ojas Shah, Michael D. Stifelman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To analyze the outcomes of our robotic-assisted pyeloplasty series for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) and compare them with our series of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty for secondary UPJO. The repair of secondary UPJO can pose additional challenges to surgeons. Robotic assistance could aid in these repairs. Methods: Using an institutional review board-approved database, we reviewed 119 consecutive patients who had undergone robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty at our institution during an 8-year period (May 2002 to February 2010). Data were collected in a combined retrospective and prospective manner. The patients were stratified into primary repair and secondary repair for the primary analysis. The patients were also stratified into those with stones and those without stones for the secondary analysis. We compared the demographic, operative, postoperative, and radiographic outcomes. Student's t test and Pearson's chi-square correlation were used for statistical analysis of continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Results: Of the original 119 patients, data were available for 117. Of the 117 patients, 97 had undergone primary pyeloplasty repair and 20 had undergone secondary pyleloplasty repair. Radiographic data were available for 84 patients with primary repair and 17 patients with secondary repair. The radiographic success rate was 96.1% and 94.1%, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in the patient demographics, operative data, or postoperative or radiographic outcomes for the primary analysis. Additionally, no differences were found in the outcomes for patients with concomitant stone disease. Conclusion: These data represent the largest single-center report of its kind. These data strongly suggest that robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty is a safe and durable option for secondary UPJO repair.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)689-694
Number of pages6
JournalUrology
Volume79
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2012

Fingerprint

Robotics
Demography
Research Ethics Committees
Chi-Square Distribution
Databases
Students

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyleloplasty for primary versus secondary repair in 119 consecutive cases. / Niver, Ben E.; Agalliu, Ilir; Bareket, Romy; Mufarrij, Patrick; Shah, Ojas; Stifelman, Michael D.

In: Urology, Vol. 79, No. 3, 03.2012, p. 689-694.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Niver, Ben E. ; Agalliu, Ilir ; Bareket, Romy ; Mufarrij, Patrick ; Shah, Ojas ; Stifelman, Michael D. / Analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyleloplasty for primary versus secondary repair in 119 consecutive cases. In: Urology. 2012 ; Vol. 79, No. 3. pp. 689-694.
@article{250c21e662764b4b9a4868b5b6c369f3,
title = "Analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyleloplasty for primary versus secondary repair in 119 consecutive cases",
abstract = "Objective: To analyze the outcomes of our robotic-assisted pyeloplasty series for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) and compare them with our series of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty for secondary UPJO. The repair of secondary UPJO can pose additional challenges to surgeons. Robotic assistance could aid in these repairs. Methods: Using an institutional review board-approved database, we reviewed 119 consecutive patients who had undergone robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty at our institution during an 8-year period (May 2002 to February 2010). Data were collected in a combined retrospective and prospective manner. The patients were stratified into primary repair and secondary repair for the primary analysis. The patients were also stratified into those with stones and those without stones for the secondary analysis. We compared the demographic, operative, postoperative, and radiographic outcomes. Student's t test and Pearson's chi-square correlation were used for statistical analysis of continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Results: Of the original 119 patients, data were available for 117. Of the 117 patients, 97 had undergone primary pyeloplasty repair and 20 had undergone secondary pyleloplasty repair. Radiographic data were available for 84 patients with primary repair and 17 patients with secondary repair. The radiographic success rate was 96.1{\%} and 94.1{\%}, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in the patient demographics, operative data, or postoperative or radiographic outcomes for the primary analysis. Additionally, no differences were found in the outcomes for patients with concomitant stone disease. Conclusion: These data represent the largest single-center report of its kind. These data strongly suggest that robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty is a safe and durable option for secondary UPJO repair.",
author = "Niver, {Ben E.} and Ilir Agalliu and Romy Bareket and Patrick Mufarrij and Ojas Shah and Stifelman, {Michael D.}",
year = "2012",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1016/j.urology.2011.10.072",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "79",
pages = "689--694",
journal = "Urology",
issn = "0090-4295",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyleloplasty for primary versus secondary repair in 119 consecutive cases

AU - Niver, Ben E.

AU - Agalliu, Ilir

AU - Bareket, Romy

AU - Mufarrij, Patrick

AU - Shah, Ojas

AU - Stifelman, Michael D.

PY - 2012/3

Y1 - 2012/3

N2 - Objective: To analyze the outcomes of our robotic-assisted pyeloplasty series for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) and compare them with our series of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty for secondary UPJO. The repair of secondary UPJO can pose additional challenges to surgeons. Robotic assistance could aid in these repairs. Methods: Using an institutional review board-approved database, we reviewed 119 consecutive patients who had undergone robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty at our institution during an 8-year period (May 2002 to February 2010). Data were collected in a combined retrospective and prospective manner. The patients were stratified into primary repair and secondary repair for the primary analysis. The patients were also stratified into those with stones and those without stones for the secondary analysis. We compared the demographic, operative, postoperative, and radiographic outcomes. Student's t test and Pearson's chi-square correlation were used for statistical analysis of continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Results: Of the original 119 patients, data were available for 117. Of the 117 patients, 97 had undergone primary pyeloplasty repair and 20 had undergone secondary pyleloplasty repair. Radiographic data were available for 84 patients with primary repair and 17 patients with secondary repair. The radiographic success rate was 96.1% and 94.1%, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in the patient demographics, operative data, or postoperative or radiographic outcomes for the primary analysis. Additionally, no differences were found in the outcomes for patients with concomitant stone disease. Conclusion: These data represent the largest single-center report of its kind. These data strongly suggest that robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty is a safe and durable option for secondary UPJO repair.

AB - Objective: To analyze the outcomes of our robotic-assisted pyeloplasty series for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) and compare them with our series of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty for secondary UPJO. The repair of secondary UPJO can pose additional challenges to surgeons. Robotic assistance could aid in these repairs. Methods: Using an institutional review board-approved database, we reviewed 119 consecutive patients who had undergone robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty at our institution during an 8-year period (May 2002 to February 2010). Data were collected in a combined retrospective and prospective manner. The patients were stratified into primary repair and secondary repair for the primary analysis. The patients were also stratified into those with stones and those without stones for the secondary analysis. We compared the demographic, operative, postoperative, and radiographic outcomes. Student's t test and Pearson's chi-square correlation were used for statistical analysis of continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Results: Of the original 119 patients, data were available for 117. Of the 117 patients, 97 had undergone primary pyeloplasty repair and 20 had undergone secondary pyleloplasty repair. Radiographic data were available for 84 patients with primary repair and 17 patients with secondary repair. The radiographic success rate was 96.1% and 94.1%, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in the patient demographics, operative data, or postoperative or radiographic outcomes for the primary analysis. Additionally, no differences were found in the outcomes for patients with concomitant stone disease. Conclusion: These data represent the largest single-center report of its kind. These data strongly suggest that robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty is a safe and durable option for secondary UPJO repair.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84857852089&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84857852089&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2011.10.072

DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2011.10.072

M3 - Article

C2 - 22386423

AN - SCOPUS:84857852089

VL - 79

SP - 689

EP - 694

JO - Urology

JF - Urology

SN - 0090-4295

IS - 3

ER -