Open figure viewer
Abstract
Introduction: The objective of this study was to analyze and compare the perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic ureteric reimplant at our center for benign diseases. Methods: This retrospective study included patients who underwent minimally invasive ureteric reimplant from July 2019 to July 2024. The medical records of all the patients were accessed, and perioperative data were retrieved with the current assessment done by physical follow-ups. The procedural success was defined as either symptom resolution or documentation of anatomical or functional signs of prompt urinary clearance by prudent investigations. Results: A total of 56 patients underwent minimally invasive modified Lich-Gregoir ureteric reimplant. The total operative time (200.4 ± 58.9 min vs. 266.8 ± 92.9 min, p = 0.009), estimated blood loss (104.8 ± 62.6 mL vs. 195.9 ± 91.9 mL, p = 0.001), time to ambulation (1.2 ± 0.4 days vs. 2.2 ± 0.5, p = 0.001), and time to full oral diet (1.9 ± 0.5 days vs. 2.7 ± 0.5 days, p = 0.001) were significantly superior in the robotic arm, whereas the rest of the parameters were similar. The success rates were also similar in both arms. Conclusion: Robotic ureteric reimplant has a shorter operating time and faster postoperative recovery, with similar success and complication rates.
Journal Section:
Research Article
References
1.
D’Addessi
A
, Bassi
P
. Ureterorenoscopy: avoiding and managing the complications
. Urol Int
. 2011
;87
(3
):251
–9
. 2.
Dewan
PA
. Ureteric reimplantation: a history of the development of surgical techniques
. BJU Int
. 2000
;85
(8
):1000
–6
. 3.
Kutikov
A
, Guzzo
TJ
, Canter
DJ
, Casale
P
. Initial experience with laparoscopic transvesical ureteral reimplantation at the Children’s hospital of Philadelphia
. J Urol
. 2006
;176
:2222
–6
. 4.
Patil
NN
, Mottrie
A
, Sundaram
B
, Patel
VR
. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation with psoas hitch: a multi-institutional, multinational evaluation
. Multinational Evaluation Urol
. 2008
;72
(1
):47
–50
. 5.
Batra
R
, Agrawal
A
, Singh
A
, Ganpule
A
, Sabnis
R
, Desai
M
. Laparoscopic ureteric reimplantation versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic ureteric reimplantation for lower ureter pathology: single-Institutional comparative study
. Int J Urol
. 2022
;29
(11
):1362
–7
. 6.
Wu
Q
, Yang
P
, Liang
Y
, Qin
H
, Gan
Z
, Qin
B
. Comparative outcomes of robot-assisted vs traditional laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation for lower ureteral stenosis: a single center study
. Med Sci Monit
. 2025
;31
:e946803
. 7.
Ansari
MS
, Banthia
R
, Jain
S
, Kaushik
VN
, Danish
N
, Yadav
P
. Long term outcomes of Cohen’s cross trigonal reimplantation for primary vesicoureteral reflux in poorly functioning kidney
. World J Clin Cases
. 2023
;11
(16
):3750
–5
. 8.
Choi
H
, Oh
SJ
, So
Y
, Lee
DS
, Lee
A
, Kim
KM
. No further development of renal scarring after antireflux surgery in children with primary vesicoureteral reflux: review of the results of 99mtechnetium dimercapto-succinic acid renal scan
. J Urol
. 1999
;162
(3 Pt 2
):1189
–92
. 9.
Carson
CC
, Kelalis
PP
, Hoffman
AD
. Renal growth in small kidneys after ureteroneocystostomy
. J Urol
. 1982
;127
(6
):1146
–8
. 10.
Scott
JE
, Stansfeld
JM
. Ureteric reflux and kidney scarring in children
. Arch Dis Child
. 1968
;43
(230
):468
–70
. 11.
Belloli
G
, Bedogni
L
, Salano
F
, Biscuola
G
, Meschi
V
. Valutazione a distanza del danno renale nel reflusso vesico-renale primitivo dopo intervento chirurgico correttivo [Long term evaluation of renal damage in primary vesico-renal reflux after corrective surgery]
. Pediatr Med e Chir
. 1985
;7
(5
):643
–52
.12.
Nayyar
R
, Yadav
S
, Singh
P
, Kumar
R
, Seth
A
, Dogra
PN
. Outcomes of pyeloplasty in very poorly functioning kidneys: examining the myths
. Urology
. 2016
;92
:132
–5
. 13.
Hemal
AK
, Nayyar
R
, Gupta
NP
, Dorairajan
LN
. Experience with robot assisted laparoscopic surgery for upper and lower benign and malignant ureteral pathologies
. Urology
. 2010
;76
(6
):1387
–93
. 14.
Baldie
K
, Angell
J
, Ogan
K
, Hood
N
, Pattaras
JG
. Robotic management of benign mid and distal ureteral strictures and comparison with laparoscopic approaches at a single institution
. Urology
. 2012
;80
(3
):596
–601
. 15.
Musch
M
, Hohenhorst
L
, Pailliart
A
, Loewen
H
, Davoudi
Y
, Kroepfl
D
. Robot-assisted reconstructive surgery of the distal ureter: single institution experience in 16 patients
. BJU Int
. 2013
;111
(5
):773
–83
. 16.
Slater
RC
, Farber
NJ
, Riley
JM
, Shilo
Y
, Ost
MC
. Contemporary series of robotic-assisted distal ureteral reconstruction utilizing side docking position
. Int Braz J Urol
. 2015
;41
(6
):1154
–9
. 17.
Dirie
NI
, Wang
S
. Robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteroneocystostomy in adults: a single surgeon experience and literature review
. Asian J Urol
. 2020
;7
(1
):37
–44
. 18.
Tyagi
V
, Pahwa
M
, Lodha
P
, Mistry
T
, Chadha
S
. Robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplant: a single-center experience
. Indian J Urol
. 2021
;37
(1
):42
–7
. 19.
Heo
JE
, Kang
SK
, Lee
J
, Koh
D
, Kim
MS
, Lee
YS
, et al. Outcomes of single-port robotic ureteral reconstruction using the da Vinci SP® system
. Investig Clin Urol
. 2023
;64
(4
):373
–9
. 20.
Zhao
K
, Lee
M
, Raver
M
, Stifelman
MD
, Zhao
LC
, Eun
DD
. Techniques for ureteral reimplantation for distal disease
. Urol Video J
. 2024
;24
:100288
. 21.
Soares
RSQ
, Abreu Jr
RA
, Tavora
JEF
. Laparoscopic ureteral reimplant for ureteral stricture
. Int Braz J Urol
. 2010
;36
(1
):38
–43
. 22.
Singh
V
, Jhanwar
A
, Sinha
RJ
. Transperitoneal laparoscopic ureteric reimplantation for lower ureteric strictures and ureterovaginal fistulas: a study from North India
. Afr J Urol
. 2017
;23
(1
):43
–7
. © 2025 S. Karger AG, Basel
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
2025
You do not currently have access to this content.
