Paediatric computer-assisted retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy compared with open surgery

Robotic-Assisted Procedures in Pediatric Surgery: A Critical Appraisal of the Current Best Evidence in Comparison to Conventional Minimally Invasive Surgery

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the use of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has expanded within pediatric surgery. Although increasing numbers of pediatric RAS case-series have been published, the level of evidence remains unclear, with authors mainly focusing on the comparison with open surgery rather than the corresponding laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study was to critically appraise the published literature comparing pediatric RAS with conventional minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in order to evaluate the current best level of evidence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature-based search for studies comparing pediatric RAS with corresponding MIS procedures was performed using multiple electronic databases and sources. The level of evidence was determined using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine (OCEBM) criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies met defined inclusion criteria, reporting on five different procedures: fundoplication (n=8), pyeloplasty (n=8), nephrectomy (n=2), gastric banding (n=1), and sleeve gastrectomy (n=1). Included publications comprised 5 systematic reviews and 15 cohort/case-control studies (OCEBM Level 3 and 4, respectively). No studies of OCEBM Level 1 or 2 were identified. Limited evidence indicated reduced operative time (pyeloplasty) and shorter hospital stay (fundoplication) for pediatric RAS, whereas disadvantages were longer operative time (fundoplication, nephrectomy, gastric banding, and sleeve gastrectomy) and higher total costs (fundoplication and sleeve gastrectomy). There were no differences reported for complications, success rates, or short-term outcomes between pediatric RAS and conventional MIS in these procedures. Inconsistency was found in study design and follow-up with large clinical heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

The best available evidence for pediatric RAS is currently OCEBM Level 3, relating only to fundoplication and pyeloplasty. Therefore, higher-quality studies and comparative data for other RAS procedures in pediatric surgery are required.

Objective pain assessment after ureteral reimplantation: comparison of open versus robotic approach

INTRODUCTION

While open ureteral reimplantation is the gold standard of surgical intervention for vesicoureteral reflux (VUR), minimally invasive approaches offer the potential benefits of decreased postoperative pain, improved cosmesis, and shorter hospital stay and convalescence. Studies comparing open and minimally invasive surgery with respect to postoperative pain in children have been inconclusive.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare postoperative pain in children undergoing open versus robotic ureteral reimplantation by using age-appropriate, validated pain assessment scales.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of all patients enrolled in an Institutional Review Board-approved VUR surgery registry between July 2010 and February 2013 was analyzed. Patients who underwent endoscopic treatment or who received caudal or epidural anesthesia were excluded. Age-appropriate, validated pain scales ranging from 0 to 10 were utilized for pain assessment. Pain scores and narcotic doses administered on the first postoperative day were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 34 subjects included, 11 underwent open intravesical reimplantation, while 23 patients underwent robotic extravesical reimplantation. Table 1 displays patient characteristics and results of pain assessment. Robotic surgery was associated with lower narcotic requirement compared to open surgery (P < 0.05). The difference in pain scores between the two cohorts approached, but did not reach, statistical significance (P = 0.12). However, the percentage of patients with mild or no pain (57% robotic, 27% open) versus severe pain (9% robotic, 45% open) was notably different between the two cohorts.

DISCUSSION

Previous studies addressing the effect of surgical modality on pediatric postoperative pain are limited by their reliance on narcotic administration as an indirect surrogate for measuring pain. In the present study, postoperative pain was assessed with narcotic requirements and consistently collected validated pain scores, which more accurately reflect a patient's perceived pain. Although there was no significant difference in subjective pain scores between patients undergoing open versus robotic reimplantation, the percentage of patients with mild or no pain (57% robotic, 27% open) versus severe pain (9% robotic, 45% open) was notably different between the two cohorts. This study was limited by a lack of randomization as well as small sample size, which did not allow for age sub-group analysis or small differences to be statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, robotic ureteral reimplantation was associated with lower narcotic requirement compared to open surgery, and lower intensity of postoperative pain according to a direct pain assessment tool. Larger sample sizes are necessary to strengthen statistical comparisons.

Current controversies in pediatric urologic robotic surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Minimally invasive surgeries such as conventional laparoscopic surgery and robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) have significant advantages over the traditional open surgical approach including lower pain medication requirements and decreased length of hospitalization. However, open surgery has demonstrated better success rates and shorter surgery time when compared to the other modalities. Currently, it is unclear which approach has better long-term clinical outcomes, greater benefits and less cost.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are limited studies in the literature comparing these three different surgical approaches. In this review, we will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of RALS compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for commonly performed pediatric urological procedures such as pyeloplasty, ureteral reimplantation, complete and partial nephrectomy, bladder augmentation and creation of continent catheterizable channels.

SUMMARY

Although it is not yet possible to demonstrate the superiority of one single surgical modality over another, RALS has been shown to be feasible, well tolerated and advantageous in reconstructive urological procedures. With experience, the outcomes of RALS are improving, justifying its usage. However, cost remains a significant issue, limiting the accessibility of RALS, which in the future may improve with market competition and device innovation.