Analysis of early and immediate results of 180 robotic operations in adults and children
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15574/PS.2025.2(87).2832Keywords:
robotic surgery, minimally invasive surgeries, new in surgery, childrenAbstract
Аim - to analyze our experience of performing robotic surgeries to assess the quality of surgical care.
Materials and methods. 180 robotic surgeries were performed using the da Vinci S and Si during 2020-2024. There were 108 adult patients, 72 children. The age of adults ranged from 18 to 72 years (mean - 45±3.7), children - from 10 months to 17 years (mean - 8±3.2).
Results. Among adult patients, 21 (19.4%) robotic operations were performed on the esophagus and stomach, 35 (32.4%) on urological ones, 9 (8.3%) on intestinal tumors, 13 (12.0%) on diseases of the liver, gallbladder, spleen, 8 (7.4%) on gynecological pathologies, 15 (14.0%) on hernias of the anterior abdominal wall, 7 (6.5%) on urgent surgical pathologies. The spectrum of surgical interventions in childhood is somewhat different. Thus, in the structure of diseases, diseases of the urinary system prevail - 43 (59.7%). 27 (37.5%) on abdominal and pelvic organs were performed. Among abdominal operations, interventions on the spleen prevailed - a total of 11 (15.3%) operations. One operation outside the abdominal cavity was also performed: robotic thoracoscopic thymectomy and external lymph node biopsy. A reduction in the duration of the operation and hospital stay, the absence of complications and conversions, an easing of the rehabilitation period for patients, and a reduction in the physical load on the members of the operating team were noted.
Conclusions. The experience of the center demonstrates that robotic surgery in Ukraine is beginning to gain momentum, indicating good qualitative and quantitative indicators.
The study was performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was approved by the local ethics committee of the mentioned institutions. Informed consent of the patients was obtained for the study.
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Avery DI, Herbst KW, Lendvay TS, Noh PH, Dangle P, Gundeti MS et al. (2015, Jun). Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Multi-institutional experience in infants. J Pediatr Urol. 11(3): 139.e1-5. Epub 2015 Mar 12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.11.025; PMid:26052000
Bowen DK, Faasse MA, Liu DB, Gong EM, Lindgren BW, Johnson EK. (2016, Jul). Use of Pediatric Open, Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Ureteral Reimplantation in the United States: 2000 to 2012. J Urol. 196(1): 207-212. Epub 2016 Feb 13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.065; PMid:26880414
Brassetti A, Ragusa A, Tedesco F, Prata F, Cacciatore L, Iannuzzi A et al. (2023). Robotic Surgery in Urology: History from PROBOT® to HUGOTM. Sensors. 23: 7104. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23167104; PMid:37631641 PMCid:PMC10458477
Capozzi VA, Scarpelli E, Armano G et al. (2022). Update of robotic surgery in benign gynecological pathology: Systematic review. Medicina (Kaunas). 58: 552. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58040552; PMid:35454390 PMCid:PMC9024779
Cohen S, Raisin G, Dothan D et al. (2022). Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP), for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO), is an alternative to open pyeloplasty in the pediatric population. J Robotic Surg. 16: 1117-1122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01341-1; PMid:34859365
Cundy TP, Marcus HJ, Hughes-Hallett A, Khurana S, Darzi A. (2015, Dec). Robotic surgery in children: adopt now, await, or dismiss? Pediatr Surg Int. 31(12): 1119-1125. Epub 2015 Sep 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-015-3800-2; PMid:26416688
Dvorakevych AO, Gurayevskyi AA, Stasyshyn AR, Gurayevskyi A-DA, Shevchuk DV, Kalinchuk OO. (2022). The first experience of using robot-assisted surgery in childhood in Ukraine. Paediatric Surgery (Ukraine). 4(77): 91-95. https://doi.org/10.15574/PS.2022.77.91
Harel M, Herbst KW, Silvis R, Makari JH, Ferrer FA, Kim C. (2015, Apr). Objective pain assessment after ureteral reimplantation: comparison of open versus robotic approach. J Pediatr Urol. 11(2): 82.e1-8. Epub 2015 Feb 26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.12.007; PMid:25864615
Hays SB, Corvino G, Lorié BD, McMichael WV, Mehdi SA, Rieser C et al. (2024, Jan). Prince and princesses: The current status of robotic surgery in surgical oncology. J Surg Oncol. 129(1): 164-182. Epub 2023 Nov 30. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.27536; PMid:38031870
Hockstein NG, Gourin CG, Faust RA, Terris DJ. (2007). A History of Robots: From Science Fiction to Surgical Robotics. J. Robot. Surg. 1: 113-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-007-0021-2; PMid:25484946 PMCid:PMC4247417
Horgan S, Galvani C, Gorodner MV et al. (2005). Robotic-assisted Heller myotomy versus laparoscopic Heller myotomy for the treatment of esophageal achalasia: multicenter study. J Gastrointest Surg. 9: 1020-1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gassur.2005.06.026; PMid:16269372
Kane WJ, Charles EJ, Mehaffey JH, Hawkins RB, Meneses KB et al. (2020). Robotic compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A propensity matched analysis. Surgery. 167: 432-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2019.07.020; PMid:31492434 PMCid:PMC6980975
Kutikov A, Nguyen M, Guzzo T, Canter D, Casale P. (2006, Nov). Robot assisted pyeloplasty in the infant-lessons learned. J Urol. 176(5): 2237-2239; discussion 2239-2240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.07.059; PMid:17070302
Mei H, Tang S. (2023, Feb 14). Robotic-assisted surgery in the pediatric surgeons' world: Current situation and future prospectives. Front Pediatr. 11: 1120831. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2023.1120831; PMid:36865692 PMCid:PMC9971628
Mittal S, Aghababian A, Eftekharzadeh S, Dinardo L, Weaver J, Weiss DA et al. (2021). Primary vs redo robotic pyeloplasty: A comparison of outcomes. Journal of Pediatric Urology. 17(4): 528.e1-528.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2021.02.016; PMid:33766473
Peters CA. (2011, Feb). Pediatric robot-assisted pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 25(2): 179-185. Epub 2011 Jan 17. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0597; PMid:21241192
Reddy K, Gharde P, Tayade H, Patil M, Reddy LS, Surya D. (2023, Dec 12). Advancements in Robotic Surgery: A Comprehensive Overview of Current Utilizations and Upcoming Frontiers. Cureus. 15(12): e50415. PMID: 38222213; PMCID: PMC10784205. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.50415
Saxena A, Borgogni R, Escolino M, D'Auria D, Esposito C. (2023). Narrative review: robotic pediatric surgery - current status and future perspectives. Translational Pediatrics. 12(10): 1875-1886. https://doi.org/10.21037/tp-22-427; PMid:37969127 PMCid:PMC10644013
Stasyshyn AR, Huraievskyi AA, Dvorakevych AO, Shevchuk DV, Kalinchuk OO ta insh. (2023). Robotychna khirurhiia v Ukraini: pershyi dosvid ta perspektyva rozvytku. Shpytalna khirurhiia. Zhurnal imeni L.Ya. Kovalchuka. (1): 5-10. https://doi.org/10.11603/2414-4533.2023.1.13794
Sutyak KM, Tsao KJ. (2024). Pedi-Bots: Innovations and progress in robotic pediatric general surgery. Journal of Pediatric Surgery Open. 7: 100156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjpso.2024.100156
Uzunoglu M, Altintoprak F, Yalkin O, Özdemir K. (2022, Jan 23). Robotic Surgery for the Treatment of Achalasia Cardia: Surgical Technique, Initial Experiences and Literature Review. Cureus. 14(1): e21510. PMID: 35223286; PMCID: PMC8863560. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.21510
Wang G, Wang Z, Jiang Z, Liu J, Zhao J, Li J. (2017, Mar). Male urinary and sexual function after robotic pelvic autonomic nerve-preserving surgery for rectal cancer. Int J Med Robot. 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1725; PMid:26748601
Wang X, Cao G, Mao W, Lao W, He C. (2020, Sep). Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Ther. 16(5): 979-989. https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_533_18; PMid:33004738
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Paediatric Surgery (Ukraine)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The policy of the Journal “PAEDIATRIC SURGERY. UKRAINE” is compatible with the vast majority of funders' of open access and self-archiving policies. The journal provides immediate open access route being convinced that everyone – not only scientists - can benefit from research results, and publishes articles exclusively under open access distribution, with a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 international license(СС BY-NC).
Authors transfer the copyright to the Journal “PAEDIATRIC SURGERY.UKRAINE” when the manuscript is accepted for publication. Authors declare that this manuscript has not been published nor is under simultaneous consideration for publication elsewhere. After publication, the articles become freely available on-line to the public.
Readers have the right to use, distribute, and reproduce articles in any medium, provided the articles and the journal are properly cited.
The use of published materials for commercial purposes is strongly prohibited.