Comparison of Complications of Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic and Open Appendicovesicostomy in Children

No AccessJournal of UrologyPediatric Urology1 Sep 2015Comparison of Complications of Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic and Open Appendicovesicostomy in Children Gwen M. Grimsby, Micah A. Jacobs, and Patricio C. Gargollo Gwen M. GrimsbyGwen M. Grimsby Division of Pediatric Urology, Department of Urology, UT Southwestern Medical Center and Children’s Medical Center, Dallas, Texas More articles by this author , Micah A. JacobsMicah A. Jacobs Division of Pediatric Urology, Department of Urology, UT Southwestern Medical Center and Children’s Medical Center, Dallas, Texas More articles by this author , and Patricio C. GargolloPatricio C. Gargollo Texas Children’s Hospital/Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.2942AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: Robot-assisted laparoscopic appendicovesicostomy in children has become increasingly popular. However, the literature on this technique mainly consists of small case series with only 1 small comparison to an open cohort. We compared the number of complications and surgical revisions required with open and robotic surgery in children undergoing appendicovesicostomy at our institution. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of all patients who underwent appendicovesicostomy by 3 surgeons between July 2002 and September 2013. Acute complications and surgical revisions were recorded and compared between groups with t-tests for continuous variables and Fisher exact test for categorical variables. Results: A total of 28 open and 39 robotic appendicovesicostomies were included. At a mean followup of 2.7 years there was no difference in number of complications or reoperations (p = 0.788 and p = 0.791, respectively) between groups. Time to first reoperation was shorter in the robotic group. However, there was no significant difference between groups regarding number of patients who underwent reoperation within the first 12 months postoperatively (p = 0.346). Conclusions: Comparison of robotic and open appendicovesicostomy revealed no significant difference in the number of acute complications or reoperations between groups. However, the nature and timing of complications differed between groups. References 1 : Trans-appendicular continent cystostomy in the management of the neurogenic bladder. Chir Pediatr1980; 21: 297. Google Scholar 2 : Catheterisable continent urinary diversion (Mitrofanoff principle)—clinical experience and psychological aspects. Eur J Pediatr Surg2001; 11: 263. Google Scholar 3 : Laparoscopic appendicovesicostomy (Mitrofanoff procedure) in a child using the da Vinci robotic system. J Urol2004; 171: 1652. Link, Google Scholar 4 : Robotic-assisted laparoscopic Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy and antegrade continent enema colon tube creation in a pediatric spina bifida patient. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A2008; 18: 310. Google Scholar 5 : Robotic assisted laparoscopic Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy: preliminary experience in a pediatric population. J Urol2009; 182: 1528. Link, Google Scholar 6 : Robot-assisted laparoscopic Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy technique and outcomes of extravesical and intravesical approaches. Eur Urol2013; 64: 831. Google Scholar 7 : Feasibility and early outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy in patients with prune belly syndrome. BJU Int2012; 109: 125. Google Scholar 8 : Continence outcomes in patients undergoing robotic assisted laparoscopic Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy. J Urol2011; 185: 1438. Link, Google Scholar 9 : Laparoscopic robot-assisted appendicovesicostomy: an initial experience. J Endourol2007; 21: 1015. Google Scholar 10 : Robot-assisted bladder neck reconstruction, bladder neck sling, and appendicovesicostomy in children: description of technique and initial results. J Endourol2011; 25: 1299. Google Scholar 11 : Robotic appendicovesicostomy revision in children: description of technique and initial results. J Endourol2015; 29: 271. Google Scholar 12 : Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg2004; 240: 205. Google Scholar 13 : The robotic appendicovesicostomy and bladder augmentation: the next frontier in robotics, are we there?. Urol Clin North Am2015; 42: 121. Google Scholar 14 : The Mitrofanoff procedure: 20 years later. J Urol2001; 165: 2394. Link, Google Scholar 15 : Appendicovesicostomy: the Mitrofanoff procedure—a 15-year perspective. J Urol2000; 163: 1922. Link, Google Scholar 16 : Appendicovesicostomy and newer alternatives for the Mitrofanoff procedure: results in the last 100 patients at Riley Children’s Hospital. J Urol1999; 162: 1749. Link, Google Scholar 17 : Continent catheterizable channels and the timing of their complications. J Urol2006; 176: 1816. Link, Google Scholar 18 : Continent urinary diversion (Mitrofanoff principle). Physical mechanisms and urodynamic explanation of continence. Prog Urol2008; 18: 120. Google Scholar © 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byLindgren B (2015) Appendicovesicostomy—What is the Best Technique for a Good Operation?Journal of Urology, VOL. 194, NO. 3, (617-618), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2015.Baskin L (2015) This Month in Pediatric UrologyJournal of Urology, VOL. 194, NO. 3, (611-612), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2015. Volume 194Issue 3September 2015Page: 772-776 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordsurinary bladdercystostomyneurogenicroboticsappendixurologic surgical proceduresMetricsAuthor Information Gwen M. Grimsby Division of Pediatric Urology, Department of Urology, UT Southwestern Medical Center and Children’s Medical Center, Dallas, Texas More articles by this author Micah A. Jacobs Division of Pediatric Urology, Department of Urology, UT Southwestern Medical Center and Children’s Medical Center, Dallas, Texas More articles by this author Patricio C. Gargollo Texas Children’s Hospital/Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...