Is robot-assisted appendicovesicostomy equivalent to the current gold standard open procedure? A comparative analysis.

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Appendicovesicostomy (RALAPV) is increasingly performed as a minimally invasive alternative to the open appendicovesicostomy (OPAV), but questions remain regarding the efficacy of the RALAPV compared to OPAV.

OBJECTIVE

To assess and compare outcomes for non-augmented RALAPV to the open surgical approach.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

An IRB approved prospective registry was retrospectively examined to abstract all patients who underwent APV without augment between 2012 and 2023. Baseline demographics, intra and post-operative characteristics, and long-term outcomes were aggregated and compared. P-values were two sided and a p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

52 children were identified, 19 (36.5%) OAPV and 33 (63.5%) RALAPV. The median age at surgery was 8.5 years for OAPV and 9.3 years for RALAPV (p = 0.29). Longer operative time was noted in the RALPAV group (346 min vs 289 min, p = 0.04), with a lower estimated blood loss (5 cc vs 30 cc, p = 0.003), shorter median length of hospital stay (4 days vs 5 days, p = 0.07), and lower IV morphine administration (0.04 mg/kg/d vs 0.09 mg/kg/d, p = 0.01). Similar surgical reintervention rate was seen in both cohorts (42% OAPV vs 36% RALAPV, p = 0.77). At the end of follow-up, continence was achieved in 18 (95%) OAPV and 33 (100%) RALAPV patients (p = 0.37)

CONCLUSIONS

RALAPV shows comparable success to patients who underwent OPAV procedures. The longer follow-up interval for OPAV highlights minimally invasive surgery as a recent adoption.