Robot-assisted Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children

Czech version

Authors: Zuzana Študentová; Vladimír Študent jr.; Jan Šarapatka; Oldřich Šmakal
Authors‘ workplace: Urologická klinika LF UP a FN Olomouc
Published in: Ces Urol 2026; 30(1): 24-29
Category: Original article
doi: https://doi.org/10.48095/cccu2026007

Overview

Major statement: Robot-assisted pyeloplasty in children, except for very young children, where the use of robotics is limited by instrument size and anesthesia duration, is becoming the preferred surgical modality and the new standard of treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate perioperative and functional outcomes of pediatric patients who underwent robot-assisted Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction using a robotic surgical system. Patients and Methods: Pediatric patients aged ≤ 18 years who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) between March 2014 and May 2025 were retrospectively identified from our institutional database. Demographic and clinical characteristics, perioperative outcomes, type of renal drainage, pelvic resection, postoperative complications, and functional outcomes were recorded and analyzed. Results: A total of 42 children were included in the analysis. The median age was 14 (range 5–18) years, and the median body weight was 54 (range 18.5–80) kg. The median operative time was 121 (range 43–207) minutes, and the median console time was 82 (range 34–157) minutes. A double-J stent was placed in 28 patients (64.3%) and removed after a median of 53 (36–630) days. Pyelostomy was used in 14 patients and removed after a median of 10.5 (8–14) days. The median length of hospital stay was 8 (range 5–17) days. At the time of data analysis, the median postoperative follow-up was 21.5 (4–104) months. Complications occurred in 9 patients (21.4%), with major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III) observed in 4 patients (9.5%; 2 stent obstructions, 1 stent dislocation, and 1 stent encrustation). No ureteropelvic junction restenosis or deterioration of renal function was observed during follow-up. The overall success rate of RALP was 100%. Conclusion: These data support RALP as a safe and effective treatment option for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in pediatric patients.

Keywords:

pyeloplasty – ureteropelvic junction obstruction – pediatric urology – robot-assisted surgery

Sources

1. Radmayr C, Bogaert G, Bujons A et al. EAU Guidelines on Pediatric Urology. In: European Association of Urology Guidelines, 2025 edition. European Association of Urology 2025 : 59.

2. Anderson JC, Hynes W. Retrocaval ureter; a case diagnosed pre-operatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation. Br J Urol 1949; 21(3):
209–214. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1949.tb10773.x.

3. Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV et al. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1993; 150(6): 1795–1799. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35898-6.

4. Gettman MT, Peschel R, Neururer R et al. A comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed with the davinci robotic system versus standard laparoscopic techniques: initial clinical results. Eur Urol 2002; 42(5): 453–457. doi: 10.1016/s0302-2838(02)00373-1.

5. NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital. First Robotic Urologic Surgery on a Child in NYC Performed at New York Weill Cornell. [online]. Available from: https://www.nyp.org/news/first-robotic-urologic-surgery-on-a-child-in-nyc-performed-at-ny#.

6. Cundy TP, Harling L, Hughes-Hallett A et al. Meta-analysis of robot-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children. BJU Int 2014; 114(4): 582–594. doi: 10.1111/bju.12683.

7. Silay MS, Danacioglu O, Ozel K et al. Laparoscopy versus robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in children: preliminary results of a pilot prospective randomized controlled trial. World J Urol 2020; 38(8): 1841–1848. doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02910-8.

8. Ghidini F, Bortot G, Gnech M et al. Comparison of cosmetic results in children >10 years old undergoing open, laparoscopic or robotic-assisted pyeloplasty: a multicentric study. J Urol 2022; 207(5): 1118–1126. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002385.

9. Esposito C, Cerulo M, Lepore B et al. Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in children: a systematic review of the literature. J Robot Surg 2023; 17(4):
1239–1246. doi: 10.1007/s11701-023-01559-1.

10. Chun B, Ayyash O, Schneck FX et al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes and cost for pediatric robotic pyeloplasty using the Da Vinci Si and Xi surgical systems. J Pediatr Urol 2026; 22(1): 105529. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2025.07.022.

11. Avery DI, Herbst KW, Lendvay TS et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: multi-institutional experience in infants. J Pediatr Urol 2015;
11(3): 139.e1–139.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.11.025.

12. Kočvara R, Sedláček J, Drlík M et al. Unstented laparoscopic pyeloplasty in young children (1–5 years old): a comparison with a repair using
double-J stent or transanastomotic externalized stent. J Pediatr Urol 2014; 10(6): 1153–1159. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.04.017.

13. Gu H, Liu Y, Lv J. Comparative outcomes of robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric patients: a decade of evidence. J Robot Surg 2025; 19(1): 436. doi: 10.1007/s11701-025-02618-5.

14. Študent V jr, Hartmann I, Šmakal O. Roboticky asistovaná pyeloplastika u pacientů ≤ 18 let věku. Ces Urol 2022; 26(Suppl. A): 55.

15. Studentova Z, Student V jr, Sarapatka J et al. Robot-assisted Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. Eur Urol Open Sci 2025; 79: S27. doi: 10.1016/s2666-1683(25)00340-4.

16. Sedláček J, Kočvara R, Molčan J et al. Transmesocolic laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: a standard approach for the left-side repair. J Pediatr Urol 2010; 6(2): 171–177. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2009.06.010.

17. Kočvara R, Sedláček J, Vraný M et al. Laparoskopická a retroperitoneoskopická pyeloplastika. Ces Urol 2003; 7(4): 6–10. doi: 10.48095/cccu2003021.