Seven years of pediatric robotic-assisted surgery: insights from 105 procedures
- PMID: 40232570
- PMCID: PMC12000270
- DOI: 10.1007/s11701-025-02257-w
Seven years of pediatric robotic-assisted surgery: insights from 105 procedures
Abstract
Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has recently expanded its role in pediatric patients. We conducted a retrospective review of 105 cases over 7 years (2017-2024) to evaluate outcomes, efficiency, and training experiences. A total of 105 children (58 boys, 47 girls) aged 2-15 years underwent robotic-assisted procedures using the Da Vinci Xi system. The most common indications were ureteropelvic junction obstruction (n = 33), varicocele (n = 29), and primary obstructive megaureter (n = 16). Two senior surgeons performed the procedures, training seven junior surgeons via the dual-console system. Statistical analysis included paired t-tests for docking time and operative duration comparisons, and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. Docking time significantly improved over time from 45 to 15 min (median 25 min) (p = 0.001). The total operative time significantly decreased over time (p = 0.001), with a median of 125 min (range 50-250). Robotic system-related issues were reported in 3/105 (2.8%). Conversion to laparoscopy was necessary in 1 (0.9%). Postoperative complications (Clavien grade 3b) occurred in 2/105 (1.8%) patients, requiring reintervention. The median hospital stay was 2 days (range 1-7). Monthly case volume increased from 1-2 to 4-7. Our 7 year experience with pediatric RAS demonstrates its safety, effectiveness, and growing role, especially in pediatric urology. It offers ergonomic advantages and facilitates training but is still limited by cost, larger instrument size (8 mm), and longer setup times compared to laparoscopy. Future developments, such as smaller robotic instruments and single-port technology, may help overcome these limitations and expand the applicability of RAS to younger and smaller patients.
Keywords: Learning curves; Pediatric urology; Pediatrics; Robot; Robotic-assisted surgery.
© 2025. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no competing interests. Ethical approval: This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Federico II University of Naples, Italy (approval number 2024/Z953).
Similar articles
-
Comparison of the Learning Curve for Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty Between Senior and Junior Surgeons.J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2021 Apr;31(4):478-483. doi: 10.1089/lap.2020.0822. Epub 2021 Mar 2. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2021. PMID: 33651635
-
Pediatric Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty: Defining Mastery Over a 15 Year Experience.J Pediatr Surg. 2025 Mar;60(3):162121. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2024.162121. Epub 2025 Jan 6. J Pediatr Surg. 2025. PMID: 39826230
-
Robot-assisted extravesical ureteral reimplantation (revur) for unilateral vesico-ureteral reflux in children: results of a multicentric international survey.World J Urol. 2018 Mar;36(3):481-488. doi: 10.1007/s00345-017-2155-9. Epub 2017 Dec 16. World J Urol. 2018. PMID: 29248949
-
Robotics in Pediatric Urology: A Review.J Pediatr Surg. 2025 Mar;60(3):162022. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2024.162022. Epub 2024 Oct 26. J Pediatr Surg. 2025. PMID: 39510858 Review.
-
Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in infants and children: is it superior to conventional laparoscopy?World J Urol. 2020 Aug;38(8):1827-1833. doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02943-z. Epub 2019 Sep 10. World J Urol. 2020. PMID: 31506749 Review.
Cited by
-
The rise of robotics and AI-assisted surgery in modern healthcare.J Robot Surg. 2025 Jun 20;19(1):311. doi: 10.1007/s11701-025-02485-0. J Robot Surg. 2025. PMID: 40540146 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Leal Ghezzi T, Campos Corleta O (2016) 30 Years of Robotic Surgery. World J Surg 40(10):2550–2557. 10.1007/s00268-016-3543-9 - PubMed
-
- Tesoro S, Gamba P, Bertozzi M, Borgogni R, Caramelli F, Cobellis G et al (2022) Pediatric robotic surgery: issues in management-expert consensus from the italian society of pediatric and neonatal anesthesia and intensive care (SARNePI) and the italian society of pediatric surgery (SICP). Surg Endosc 36(11):7877–7897. 10.1007/s00464-022-09577-0 - PMC - PubMed
-
- Esposito C, Blanc T, Lardy H, Masieri L, Fourcade L, Mendoza-Sagaon M, Nappo S, Lopez M, Pelizzo G, Steyaert H, Gamba P, Scuderi MG, Escolino M, Castagnetti M, Chiarenza F, El Ghoneimi A (2022) Robotic surgery in pediatric urology: a critical appraisal of the GECI and SIVI Consensus of european experts. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 32(10):1108–1113. 10.1089/lap.2021.0837 - PubMed
-
- Peters BS, Armijo PR, Krause C, Choudhury SA, Oleynikov D (2018) Review of emerging surgical robotic technology. Surg Endosc 32(4):1636–1655. 10.1007/s00464-018-6079-2 - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources