Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018;71(2):221-227.
doi: 10.5173/ceju.2018.1690. Epub 2018 Apr 25.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reconstruction: а systematic review of literature

Konstantin Kolontarev  1 , George Kasyan  1 , Dmitry Pushkar  1
Affiliations
Review

Robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reconstruction: а systematic review of literature

Konstantin Kolontarev et al. Cent European J Urol. 2018.

Abstract

Introduction: To review the literature, as well as to analyze and compare available data on robot-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) surgery versus open surgery, carried out in ureteral reconstructions in terms of different surgical characteristics.

Materials and methods: Eligible studies, published between 1997 and July 2016, were retrieved through MEDLINE by applying predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria with the English language restriction. Publications on RAL surgeries, carried out in different ureteral reconstructions and of any study design, including case series and comparative studies, were included. The study was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement.

Results: A total of 12 retrospective studies (case series and comparative studies) met the systematic review selection criteria involving 245 RAL and 76 open ureteral surgery cases. Main indications for ureter reconstruction were strictures, tumors and injuries. The individual results of comparative studies revealed that the EBL was statistically significantly lower for RAL than for open surgery. As for operation time, length of hospital stay and follow-up time, the data was contradictory. The rate of recurrent stricture in RAL and open groups was similar: -9.0%. The meta-analysis of three comparative studies confirmed that patients lose statistically significantly less blood in RAL, compared to open surgery.

Conclusions: The analysis of limited data available shows that robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reconstruction is a safe and effective minimally invasive technique with high cure rates similar to those of the conventional open approach and, with favorable safety profile. Future well-designed randomized controlled trials are required to strengthen our findings.

Keywords: laparoscopic surgery; robotic surgery; systematic review; ureteral reconstruction; ureteral trauma.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of study selection for systematic review and meta-analysis.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Impact of Robot-Assisted Laparoscopy (RAL) vs. Open surgery on Estimated Blood Loss (mL). MD – Mean Difference, LCL – Lower Confidence Limit, UCL – Upper Confidence Limit
Figure 3
Figure 3
Impact of robot-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) vs. Open surgery on operation time (min). MD – Mean Difference, LCL – Lower Confidence Limit, UCL – Upper Confidence Limit
Figure 4
Figure 4
Impact of Robot-Assisted Laparoscopy (RAL) vs. Open surgery on Length of Hospital Stay (days). MD – Mean Difference, LCL – Lower Confidence Limit, UCL – Upper Confidence Limit
Figure 5
Figure 5
Impact of Robot-Assisted Laparoscopy (RAL) vs. Open surgery on patients’ Follow-Up Time (months). MD – Mean Difference, LCL – Lower Confidence Limit, UCL – Upper Confidence Limit
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Rashid TG, Kini M, Ind TE. Comparing the learning curve for robotically assisted and straight stick laparoscopic procedures in surgical novices. Int J Med Robot. 2010;6:306–310. - PubMed
    1. Hemal AK, Nayyar R, Gupta NP, Dorairajan LN. Experience with robot assisted laparoscopic surgery for upper and lower benign and malignant ureteral pathologies. Urology. 2010;76:1387–1393. - PubMed
    1. Mufarrij PW, Shah OD, Berger AD, Stifelman MD. Robotic reconstruction of the upper urinary tract. J Urol. 2007;178:2002–2005. - PubMed
    1. Schimpf MO, Wagner JR. Robot-assisted laparoscopic distal ureteral surgery. JSLS. 2009;13:44–49. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wason SE, Lance RS, Given RW, Malcolm JB. Robotic-assisted ureteral re-implantation: a case series. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2015;25:503–507. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources