Mini-invasive robotic assisted pyelolithotomy: Comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE\nTo compare the retroperitoneal with the transperitoneal approach in a series of patients underwent to robotic-assisted pyelolithotomy (RP).\n\n\nMATERIALS AND METHODS\nFrom January 2015 to December 2018 we evaluated 20 patients subjected to robotic pyelolithotomy; 11 patients were treated with retroperitoneal approach (RRP) and 9 with transperitoneal approach (TRP). For each patient intra and perioperative data were recorded: operative time (OT), blood loss (BL), length of hospital stay (LOS), stone clearance, post-operative complications and time to remove the drain. The presence of stone fragments < 4 mm was considered as stone free rate.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe principal stone burden was greater in the TRP group than in the RRP group (48 ± 10 mm vs 32 ± 14 mm, p = 0.12). Preoperative hydronephrosis was present in 7 (64%) patients in RRP group and a mild hydronephrosis in 3 of TRP group (p = 0.04). The average operative time was higher in the RRP group than in the TRP group (203 ± 45 min vs 137 ± 31 min, p = 0.002). The average blood loss was 305 ± 175 ml in the RRP group versus 94 ± 104 ml in the TRP group (p = 0.005). The stone free rate was similar between the two groups, 36% (4 patients) in the RRP group and 44% (4 patients) in the TRP (p = 0.966).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nRP appears to be a safe and effective minimally invasive treatment for some patients with renal staghorn calculi or urinary tract malformations. The TRP may give lower operative time and better results in terms of blood loss and length of hospital stay.