Primary vs redo robotic pyeloplasty: A comparison of outcomes.

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) is a safe and efficacious option for repair of UPJO. We hypothesize that redo-RALP is technically more difficult but has comparable outcomes to primary RALP.

METHODS

An IRB-approved single institutional registry was utilized to identify all patients undergoing primary or redo RALP from 2012 to 2019. Redo RALP consisted of pyeloplasty and ureterocalicostomy (RALUC). Peri-operative and post-operative details and outcomes were aggregated. Successful reconstruction was defined as resolution of symptoms, improved hydronephrosis and no need for additional procedures.

RESULTS

From 399 patients who underwent UPJO repair at our center, a total of 306 with a median age of 4.9 years at surgery and a median follow-up of 18.5 months were included: 276 primary and 30 redo (21 RALP and 9 RALUC). Redo group had significantly longer procedure time and length of stay compared to the primary group. However, no significant difference was noted in the post-operative complications, need for additional endoscopic procedures or redo reconstruction, and success between the two groups. Multivariate analysis showed that when controlled for age, gender, 30-days post-operative complication and anatomy of obstruction, redo as compared to primary reconstruction did not have a significant effect on success.

DISCUSSION

This study is the largest controlled cohort in the pediatric population comparing redo RALP with an established control group -primary RALP. This retrospective chart review possesses the biases innate to any retrospective study. The low number of re-operative cases as well as low rate of failure in redo RALP further complicates identification of statistically significant predictors of outcomes following redo RALP.

CONCLUSION

Redo RALP is an efficient and safe approach for reconstruction of recurrent UPJO, with low complication rate and high success rate, comparable to primary RALP.