Initial Experience of Robot Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction Using the Hinotori Surgical Robot System.
da Vinci
hinotori
pyeloplasty
robotic surgery
ureteropelvic junction obstruction
Journal
The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS
ISSN: 1478-596X
Titre abrégé: Int J Med Robot
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101250764
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2024
Oct 2024
Historique:
revised:
02
09
2024
received:
13
06
2024
accepted:
06
09
2024
medline:
18
9
2024
pubmed:
18
9
2024
entrez:
18
9
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to investigate the perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RLP) using the recently launched hinotori surgical robot system. This retrospective study compared the perioperative outcomes of 11 consecutive patients who underwent RLP with the hinotori surgical robot system from October 2022 to March 2024 (hinotori group) and 30 consecutive patients who underwent RLP with the da Vinci system from March 2019 to September 2022 (da Vinci group). The patient characteristics of the groups were similar. The median operative times in the hinotori and da Vinci groups were 236.0 and 231.5 min, respectively (p = 0.480). The success rates were 100.0% and 96.7%, respectively (p = 1.000). Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications occurred in one patient (9.1%) in the hinotori group and one patient (3.3%) in the da Vinci group (p = 0.470). The perioperative outcomes in the hinotori group were not inferior to those in the da Vinci group.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to investigate the perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RLP) using the recently launched hinotori surgical robot system.
METHODS
METHODS
This retrospective study compared the perioperative outcomes of 11 consecutive patients who underwent RLP with the hinotori surgical robot system from October 2022 to March 2024 (hinotori group) and 30 consecutive patients who underwent RLP with the da Vinci system from March 2019 to September 2022 (da Vinci group).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The patient characteristics of the groups were similar. The median operative times in the hinotori and da Vinci groups were 236.0 and 231.5 min, respectively (p = 0.480). The success rates were 100.0% and 96.7%, respectively (p = 1.000). Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications occurred in one patient (9.1%) in the hinotori group and one patient (3.3%) in the da Vinci group (p = 0.470).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The perioperative outcomes in the hinotori group were not inferior to those in the da Vinci group.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2673Informations de copyright
© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
V. Poulakis, U. Witzsch, D. Schultheiss, P. Rathert, and E. Becht, “[History of Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction Repair (Pyeloplasty). From Trendelenburg (1886) to the Present],” Urologe A 43, no. 12 (2004): 1544–1559, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120‐004‐0663‐x.
W. W. Schuessler, M. T. Grune, L. V. Tecuanhuey, and G. M. Preminger, “Laparoscopic Dismembered Pyeloplasty,” Journal of Urology 150, no. 6 (1993): 1795–1799, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022‐5347(17)35898‐6.
P. W. Mufarrij, M. Woods, O. D. Shah, et al., “Robotic Dismembered Pyeloplasty: A 6‐Year, Multi‐Institutional Experience,” Journal of Urology 180, no. 4 (2008): 1391–1396, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.06.024.
M. Etafy, D. Pick, S. Said, et al., “Robotic Pyeloplasty: The University of California‐Irvine Experience,” Journal of Urology 185, no. 6 (2011): 2196–2200, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.054.
C. Schwentner, A. Pelzer, R. Neururer, et al., “Robotic Anderson‐Hynes Pyeloplasty: 5‐Year Experience of One Centre,” BJU International 100, no. 4 (2007): 880–885, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464‐410x.2007.07032.x.
R. E. Link, S. B. Bhayani, and L. R. Kavoussi, “A Prospective Comparison of Robotic and Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty,” Annals of Surgery 243, no. 4 (2006): 486–491, https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000205626.71982.32.
M. Boal, C. G. Di Girasole, F. Tesfai, et al., “Evaluation Status of Current and Emerging Minimally Invasive Robotic Surgical Platforms,” Surgical Endoscopy 38, no. 2 (2024): 554–585, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464‐023‐10554‐4.
H. Miyake and M. Fujisawa, “Early Experience and Future Prospects Regarding Use of Newly Developed Surgical Robot System, Hinotori, in the Field of Urologic Cancer Surgery,” International Journal of Clinical Oncology 29, no. 6 (2024): 640–646, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147‐024‐02503‐5.
N. Hinata, R. Yamaguchi, Y. Kusuhara, et al., “Hinotori Surgical Robot System, a Novel Robot‐Assisted Surgical Platform: Preclinical and Clinical Evaluation,” International Journal of Urology 29, no. 10 (2022): 1213–1220, https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.14973.
Y. Kanda, “Investigation of the Freely Available Easy‐to‐Use Software ‘EZR’ for Medical Statistics,” Bone Marrow Transplantation 48, no. 3 (2013): 452–458, https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2012.244.
G. T. Sung, I. S. Gill, and T. H. Hsu, “Robotic‐Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty: A Pilot Study,” Urology 53, no. 6 (1999): 1099–1103, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090‐4295(99)00030‐8.
M. T. Gettman, R. Peschel, R. Neururer, and G. Bartsch, “A Comparison of Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty Performed With the da Vinci Robotic System Versus Standard Laparoscopic Techniques: Initial Clinical Results,” European Urology 42, no. 5 (2002): 453–457, discussion 457–458, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0302‐2838(02)00373‐1.
H. Miyake, D. Motoyama, Y. Matsushita, et al., “Initial Experience of Robot‐Assisted Partial Nephrectomy Using Hinotori Surgical Robot System: Single Institutional Prospective Assessment of Perioperative Outcomes in 30 Cases,” Journal of Endourology 37, no. 5 (2023): 531–534, https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2022.0775.
D. Motoyama, Y. Matsushita, H. Watanabe, et al., “Robot‐Assisted Radical Nephrectomy Using Novel Surgical Robot Platform, Hinotori: Report of Initial Series of 13 Cases,” International Journal of Urology 30, no. 12 (2023): 1175–1179, https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.15292.
D. Motoyama, Y. Matsushita, H. Watanabe, et al., “Robot‐Assisted Radical Nephroureterectomy for Upper Urinary Tract Tumor: Initial Experience With the Use of Novel Surgical Robot System, Hinotori,” Translational Cancer Research 12 (2023): 3522–3529, https://doi.org/10.21037/tcr‐23‐853.
T. Hayashi, H. Kitano, K. Hieda, and N. Hinata, “First Case Report of Robot‐Assisted Radical Cystectomy and Intracorporeal Urinary Diversion Using the Hinotori Surgical Robot System,” Translational Cancer Research 13, no. 1 (2024): 471–479, https://doi.org/10.21037/tcr‐23‐991.