Journal of pediatric urology · 2026
Comparison of clinical outcomes of robotic versus open pyeloplasty in infants under 6 months.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bain Alexandra, Morin Jacqueline, Sion Amanda, Smith Jennifer, Zhang Yueran, Alpert Seth, Jayanthi Venkata R, Baker Linda, Ching Christina B, McLeod Daryl, Fuchs Molly E, DaJusta Daniel G
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Robotic pyeloplasties have become the popular approach for surgical repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) in the pediatric population. In infants less than 6 months old, there is concern for lack of intra-abdominal working space and lack of benefit compared to an open approach. Our aim was to compare the peri-operative and post-operative outcomes of patients undergoing open versus robotic pyeloplasty under six months of age.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of patients less than six months of age undergoing robotic or open pyeloplasty between 2020 and 2024 at a single institution. Patient demographics and clinical outcomes were collected and compared. Surgical success was defined as a >50% reduction in the antero-pelvic diameter (APD) of the affected kidney at one year post pyeloplasty.
RESULTS: A total of 32 patients were identified (16 robotic and 16 open), median age at surgery was 4 months old. There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay or narcotic usage between the two groups. The robotic cohort had a significantly longer operative time (209.5 min vs 142.5 min, p < 0.001) compared to the open cohort. There was no significant difference between post-operative complication or surgical success rates between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: In this small series, robotic and open pyeloplasty both remain viable options for infants less than 6 months of age with equivalent surgical outcomes and lengths of hospital stay.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of patients less than six months of age undergoing robotic or open pyeloplasty between 2020 and 2024 at a single institution. Patient demographics and clinical outcomes were collected and compared. Surgical success was defined as a >50% reduction in the antero-pelvic diameter (APD) of the affected kidney at one year post pyeloplasty.
RESULTS: A total of 32 patients were identified (16 robotic and 16 open), median age at surgery was 4 months old. There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay or narcotic usage between the two groups. The robotic cohort had a significantly longer operative time (209.5 min vs 142.5 min, p < 0.001) compared to the open cohort. There was no significant difference between post-operative complication or surgical success rates between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: In this small series, robotic and open pyeloplasty both remain viable options for infants less than 6 months of age with equivalent surgical outcomes and lengths of hospital stay.