Videosurgery
Minimally-invasive robotic pyeloplasty: the "window technique"
Franco Gaboardi, Salvatore Smelzo, Guglielmo Mantica, Davide De Marchi, Giovanni Passaretti, Giovannalberto Pini, Giuseppe Saitta, Nazareno Suardi
Department of Urology, San Raffaele Turro Hospital, Milan
Citation: Gaboardi F, Smelzo S, Mantica G, et al. Minimally-invasive robotic pyeloplasty: the "window technique". www.ceju.online/journal/10000/pyeloplasty-robotic-surgery-robotic-pyeloplasty--1960.php
Key Words: pyeloplasty • robotic surgery •  • robotic pyeloplasty

The transmesocolic approach offers the advantage of direct approach to the ureteric pelvic junction (UPJ). We aim to present our technique modification for robotic pyeloplasty called 'window technique'.
The video shows a minimally-invasive approach named 'window' technique. It is performed after the preventive insertion of the ContourTM stent which is a ureteric single J stent subsequently easily convertible in a double J.
The surgical procedure is carried out with the patient in flank position and the insertion of 4 trocars (12, 8, 8 and 5 millimeters). On the right side a 2 cm incision of the supramesocolon after recognition of the UPJ is performed. Isolation of the proximal ureter and of the renal pelvis. Four stay sutures are placed to the 'window opening'. Excision of the stenotic ureteral tract, spatulation of the ureter and anastomosis with continuous suture are performed. After completion of the anastomosis, the complete reconstruction of the supramesocolon is performed. The procedure is similarly performed on the left side, through a 2 cm incision of the mesocolon. In the second postoperative day there is the conversion of the ContourTM into a double J stent.
The pre-operative insertion of the ContourTM stent allows the exact identification of the site of UPJ and the execution of a robotic pyeloplasty with a minimally-invasive incision of the retroperitoneum. Moreover, at the end of the procedure, anastomotic leakages can be easily recognized and repaired.

Article history
Submitted: 20 May, 2019
Accepted: 9 August, 2019
Published online: 19 August, 2019
doi: 10.5173/ceju.2019.1960
Corresponding author
Guglielmo Mantica
email: guglielmo.mantica@gmail.com
Conflicts of interest:  The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Ahead of print
Current issue
Issue: 2019
Vol. 72, No. 2 Vol. 72, No. 1
Issue: 2018
Vol. 71, No. 4 Vol. 71, No. 3 Vol. 71, No. 2 Vol. 71, No. 1
Issue: 2017
Vol. 70, No. 4 Vol. 70, No. 3 Vol. 70, No. 2 Vol. 70, No. 1
Issue: 2016
Vol. 69, No. 4 Vol. 69, No. 3 Vol. 69, No. 2 Vol. 69, No. 1
Issue: 2015
Vol. 68, No. 4 Vol. 68, No. 3 Vol. 68, No. 2 Vol. 68, No. 1
Issue: 2014
Vol. 67, No. 4 Vol. 67, No. 3 Vol. 67, No. 2 Vol. 67, No. 1
Issue: 2013
Vol. 66, No. 4 Vol. 66, No. 3 Vol. 66, No. 2 Vol. 66, No. 1
Issue: 2012
Vol. 65, No. 4 Vol. 65, No. 3 Vol. 65, No. 2 Vol. 65, No. 1
Issue: 2011
Vol. 64, No. 4 Vol. 64, No. 3 Vol. 64, No. 2 Vol. 64, No. 1
Issue: 2010
Vol. 63, No. 4 Vol. 63, No. 3 Vol. 63, No. 2 Vol. 63, No. 1
Issue: 2009
Vol. 62, No. 4 Vol. 62, No. 3 Vol. 62, No. 2 Vol. 62, No. 1
Loading...
Logo CEJU