Efficacy and safety of robotic laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in pediatric patients: a systematic review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20260257Keywords:
Robotic pyeloplasty, Ureteropelvic junction obstruction, Pediatric urology, Laparoscopy, Surgical outcomes, SafetyAbstract
Pediatric ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) has been replaced by robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) more and more frequently as compared to open and conventional laparoscopic procedures. This method is desirable as it leads to increased dexterity and visualization, but the method is constrained by cost, learning and lack of long-term consistency. The paper is a systematic review that summarizes the data regarding the effectiveness and safety of RALP in the child population. A detailed search of PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and Scopus (20002025) found 20 eligible studies including randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort and retrospective series. The inclusion criteria included patients aged less than 18 years who had undergone RALP to treat UPJO and have recorded successful outcomes. Information that was extracted included operative time, success, complications and hospital stay. The tools of quality assessment were RoB 2, ROBINS-I, NIH and AMSTAR-2. Synthesis of pooled data were done using random effects model. Across 1,420 pediatric cases, pooled success was 95.2% (range 92.6-100) with an overall complication rate of 8.5%, of which 2.1% were major (Clavien-Dindo ≥III). Mean operative time averaged 110 minutes for RALP versus 144 minutes for conventional laparoscopy, while hospital stay was comparable or shorter for RALP (1.8 vs 3.5 days vs open). Infants and complex UPJO cases demonstrated similar outcomes with slightly longer operative times. RALP achieves high success and low complication rates in pediatric UPJO, outperforming conventional laparoscopy in efficiency and postoperative recovery but heterogeneity, short follow-up and limited cost-effectiveness data temper definitive conclusions. Multi-institutional randomized trials with standardized outcome definitions remain essential to confirm long-term renal benefits and economic feasibility.
Metrics
References
Aaraj MSA and Badreldin AM. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction. 2023. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560740/. Accessed on 10 June 2025.
Minnillo BJ, Cruz JA, Sayao RH, Passerotti CC, Houck CS, Meier PM, et al. Long-term experience and outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children and young adults. J Urol. 2011;185(4):1455-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.11.056
Esposito C, Cerulo M, Lepore B, Coppola V, D’Auria D, Esposito G, et al. Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in children: a systematic review of the literature. J Robot Surg. 2023;17(4):1239-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01559-1
Kawal T, Srinivasan AK, Shrivastava D, Chu DI, Van Batavia J, Weiss D, et al. Pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Does age matter? J Pediat Urol. 2018;14(6):540.e1-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2018.04.023
Silay MS, Danacioglu O, Ozel K, Karaman MI, Caskurlu T. Laparoscopy versus robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in children: preliminary results of a pilot prospective randomized controlled trial. World J Urol. 2020;38(8):1841-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02910-8
Jha AA, Sandhu AS, Dash SC, Talwar R, Govindaiah M, Singh G, et al. Comparison of surgical and functional outcome of laparoscopic pyeloplasty and robot-assisted pyeloplasty for congenital ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol Surg. 2022;9(1):20-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4274/jus.galenos.2021.2021.0024
Pérez-Marchán M, Pérez-Brayfield M. Comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty vs. robot-assisted pyeloplasty for the management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. Front Pediatr. 2022;10:1038454. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2022.1038454
Trachta J, Kučerová B, Rygl M. Robotic pyeloplasty in children: a pilot study. Rozhl Chir. 2022;101(2):79-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33699/PIS.2022.101.2.79-84
Casale P. Robotic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population. Curr Urol Rep. 2009;10(1):55-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-009-0010-2
Kutikov A, Nguyen M, Guzzo T, Canter D, Casale P. Robot-assisted pyeloplasty in the infant lessons learned. J Urol. 2006;176(5):2237-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.07.059
González ST, Rosito TE, Tur AB, Ruiz J, Gozalbez R, Maiolo A, et al. Multicenter comparative study of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population for treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Int Braz J Urol. 2022;48(6):961-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2022.0194
Abdulfattah S, Aghababian A, Saxena S, Eftekharzadeh S, Mitchell A, Ai E, et al. Outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty among pediatric patients with complex renal anatomy: a retrospective comparative study. J Pediatr Urol. 2024;20(6):1174-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2024.07.019
Vidhya T, Rajiv P, Sripathi V. Analysis of outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children from a tertiary pediatric center in South India. Front Pediatr. 2024;12:1376644. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2024.1376644
Pakkasjärvi N, Taskinen S. Introduction of pediatric robot-assisted pyeloplasty in a low-volume centre. Clin Pract. 2021;11(1):143-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract11010020
Sun L, Zhao D, Shen Y, Tang D, Chen G, Zhu L, et al. Laparoscopic versus robot-assisted pyeloplasty in infants and young children. Asian J Surg. 2023;46(2):868-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2022.09.046
Kang B, Suh J, Lim B, Kim KS, Song SH. Comparative analysis of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric and adult patients: does age matter? J Clin Med. 2022;11(19):5651. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195651
Taktak S, Llewellyn O, Aboelsoud M, Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction in the paediatric population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ther Adv Urol. 2019;11:1756287219835704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1756287219835704
Murthy P, Cohn J, Gundeti M. Evaluation of robotic-assisted laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children: single-surgeon experience. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2015;97(2):109-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1308/003588414X14055925058797
Sorensen MD, Delostrinos C, Johnson MH, Grady RW, Lendvay TS. Comparison of the learning curve and outcomes of robotic assisted pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2011;185(6):2517-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.01.021
Riachy E, Cost NG, Defoor WR, Reddy PP, Minevich EA, Noh PH. Pediatric standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a comparative single-institution study. J Urol. 2013;189(1):283-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.008
Greenwald D, Mohanty A, Andolfi C, Gundeti MS. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Pediatric Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2022;36(4):448-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2021.0363
Xing MH, Hou S, Lombardo A, Kalidoss S, Nordgren R, Gam K, et al. Pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: defining mastery over a 15-year experience. J Pediatr Surg. 2025;60(3):162121 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2024.162121
Shu B, Zhang S, Gao J, Wang L, Wang S, Shi R, et al. Da Vinci robotic-assisted pyeloplasty versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty in newborns under 3 months. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):28435. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-14603-x
Casella DP, Fox JA, Schneck FX, Cannon GM, Ost MC. Cost analysis of pediatric robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Health Sciences Research Commons. Available at: https://hsrc.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/smhs_uro_facpubs/300/?utm_source=chatgpt.com. Accessed on 15 June 2025.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
