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
. 2021 Mar 1;11(1):143-150.
doi: 10.3390/clinpract11010020.

Introduction of Pediatric Robot-Assisted Pyeloplasty in A Low-Volume Centre

Niklas Pakkasjärvi  1 , Seppo Taskinen  1
Affiliations

Introduction of Pediatric Robot-Assisted Pyeloplasty in A Low-Volume Centre

Niklas Pakkasjärvi et al. Clin Pract. .

Abstract

(1) Background: This study investigated the introduction of pediatric robot-assisted pyeloplasty in a low-volume centre with reference to open pyeloplasty with regards to operative times, length of stay (LOS) and outcomes and cost analysis. (2) Methods: Data from 10 consecutive robot-assisted pyeloplasties was compared retrospectively to an age and weight matched cohort of open pyeloplasties operated on during two previous years. Operative times were analyzed in conjunction with LOS, outcomes and cost-analysis from patient records. (3) Results: Operative times remain longer in robot-assisted pyeloplasties (168 (IQR 68) vs. 141 (IQR 51) min), but patients are discharged from the hospital earlier and may return to daily activities earlier. In our hospital, the difference in LOS levels to some degree the cost difference between operations. (4) Conclusions: Robot-assisted pyeloplasty can be safely and economically introduced and maintained in a low-volume centre.

Keywords: cost analysis; minimally invasive; pediatric pyeloplasty; robot-assisted; surgical training.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Seideman C.A., Sleeper J.P., Lotan Y. Cost comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J. Endourol. 2012;26:1044–1048. doi: 10.1089/end.2012.0026. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Braga L.H., Pace K., DeMaria J., Lorenzo A.J. Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted versus conventional pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Effect on operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and success rate. Eur. Urol. 2009;56:848–857. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.03.063. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ekin R.G., Celik O., Ilbey Y.O. An up-to-date overview of minimally invasive treatment methods in ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Cent. Eur. J. Urol. 2015;68:245–251. doi: 10.5173/ceju.2015.543. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dindo D., Demartines N., Clavien P.-A. Classification of surgical complications. Ann. Surg. 2004;240:205–213. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tasian G.E., Wiebe D.J., Casale P. Learning curve of robotic assisted pyeloplasty for pediatric urology fellows. J. Urol. 2013;190:1622–1627. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.009. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources