https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2024.12263
Robotic pyeloplasty: Technological global panacea or geo-surgical nightmare?
Submitted: January 7, 2024
Accepted: February 9, 2024
Published: March 7, 2024
Accepted: February 9, 2024
Abstract Views: 358
PDF: 199
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Authors
To the Editor,
Pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction (PUJO) is a well-recognised clinical entity characterised by functionally significant impairment of drainage of urine at the level of the pelvi-ureteric junction due to extrinsic or intrinsic obstruction and is encountered both by adult and paediatric urologists alike. Management of PUJO has been surgical historically, and the gold standard has been an open Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty [...]
González ST, Rosito TE, Bujons A, et al. Multicenter comparative study of open, laparoscopic, and robotic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). International Braz J Urol (Internet). 2022; 48:961-8.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2022.0194
Moretto S, Gandi C, Bientinesi R, et al. Robotic versus Open Pyeloplasty: Perioperative and Functional Outcomes. Journal of Clinical Medicine (Internet). 2023; 12:2538.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12072538
Nadu A, Mottrie A, Geavlete P. Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: Which Surgical Approach? European Urology Open Science 2009; 8:778-81.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eursup.2009.06.014
Sun L, Zhao D, Shen Y, et al. Laparoscopic versus robot-assisted pyeloplasty in infants and young children. Asian J Surg. 2022; 46:868-73.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2022.09.046
Casella DP, Fox J, Schneck FX, et al. Cost analysis of pediatric Robot-Assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol 2013; 189:1083-6.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.259
Mjaess G, Diamand R, Aoun F, et al. Cost-analysis of robot-assisted radical cystectomy in Europe: A cross-country comparison. Eur J Surg Oncol 2023; 49:1511-8.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2022.07.023
Lam K, Clarke J, Purkayastha S, Kinross J. Uptake and accessibility of surgical robotics in England. Int J Med Robot. 2021; 17:1-7.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.2174
How to Cite
Nikolinakos, P., Chatzikrachtis, N., Donkov, I., Kotsi, E., Antonoglou, G., Alexandrou, I., Zavras, N., & Norris, J. M. (2024). Robotic pyeloplasty: Technological global panacea or geo-surgical nightmare?. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 96(1). https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2024.12263
Copyright (c) 2024 the Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.