Collaborating with our adult colleagues: A case series of robotic surgery for suspicious and cancerous lesions in children and young adults performed in a free-standing children's hospital. Issue 2 (April 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Varda, Briony K.; Cho, Patricia; Wagner, Andrew A.; Lee, Richard S.
• Is Part Of: Journal of pediatric urology. Volume 14:Issue 2(2018)
• Page Start: 182.e1
• Page End: 182.e8
• Publication Date: 2018-04
• Subjects: Robotics -- Oncology -- Partial nephrectomy -- Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection -- Adrenalectomy -- Radical nephrectomy; Pediatric urology -- Periodicals; Urologic Diseases -- Periodicals; Urogenital Diseases -- Periodicals; Urologic Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Child; Infant; Urologie pédiatrique -- Périodiques; Appareil urinaire -- Maladies -- Périodiques; Pédiatrie; Urologie; Pediatric urology; Périodique électronique (Descripteur de forme); Ressource Internet (Descripteur de forme); Electronic journals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 618.926
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2018.01.003
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1477-5131

Abstract

Summary: Background: In adult urologic oncology the use of robotics has become commonplace; in pediatric urology it is rare. Herein, we describe a collaboration between an adult and a pediatric urologist performing robotic surgery for children and young adults with suspicious or cancerous genitourinary (GU) lesions. Objectives: To evaluate clinical and oncologic outcomes in children and young adults undergoing robotic surgery for suspicious or cancerous lesions of the GU tract; to describe our collaborative model between an adult and pediatric surgeon at a free-standing children's hospital. Design: We retrospectively reviewed all robotic cases performed at our institution from 2014 to 2016 for patients with a GU malignancy or a suspicious mass. The surgeries were performed by a pediatric urologist with robotic experience and a fellowship-trained MIS adult urologist specializing in oncology. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes were recorded. Results: A total of eight robotic cases were performed: four partial nephrectomies (PN) with retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (LND) (OT 269–338 min, EBL 5–300 mL, LOS 3–6 days), one adrenalectomy with LND (6.4 cm mass; OT 172 min, EBL 5 mL, LOS 3 days), one nephrectomy with pericaval LND (9.8 cm mass; 234 min, EBL 25 mL, LOS 3 days), and two retroperitoneal LNDs (OT 572 and 508 min, EBL 250 and 100, LOS 3 and 4 days). Patient weights ranged from 14 to 79 kg (mean 53.4 kg). There were no major complications (Clavien 3–5). Pathology results for PN included papillary RCC (AJCC pT1aNx) and two cases of segmental cystic renal dysplasia with nephrogenic rests. Bilateral template RPLNDs yielded paratesticular rhabdomyosarcoma (43 nodes; COG low risk group II stage I) and mixed non-seminomatous germ cell tumor (74 nodes; COG stage III). The nephrectomy yielded an undifferentiated sarcoma, low grade; the adrenalectomy favorable-type ganglioneuroma. Discussion: In pediatrics, urologic oncology cases are often managed with open surgery. Our series demonstrates the feasibility of using the robotic approach in carefully selected cases. In doing so, the patient benefits from a minimally invasive surgery, while the surgeon benefits from robotic surgical dexterity. We seamlessly advanced these new techniques through a step-wise collaboration between an adult urologist who routinely performs robotic oncology procedures and a pediatric urologist experienced in robotics for benign conditions. Conclusion: In this small series, we safely and effectively adapted adult robotic techniques for genitourinary oncology cases in children and young adults. Figure View of renal hilum during partial nephrectomy in a 14-kg girl.