Search

Copyright of Monatsschrift Kinderheilkunde is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Der Urologe A is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Der Urologe A is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Der Urologe A is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare our initial experience with robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (R-LPP) with the conventional laparoscopic method (C-LPP)., Materials and Methods: In the defined period from May 2015 to September 2019, a total of 76 renal pelvic surgeries were performed at two different university clinics. In all, 63 patients who received either L‑NBP (n = 27) or R‑NBP (n = 36) were considered for data analysis., Results: The median follow-up for C‑LPP and R‑LPP was 22.5 and 12.7 months, respectively. The statistical analysis of the two groups revealed no statistically significant difference regarding age, body mass index, gender or affected side. The operating time was nonsignificantly shorter in the R‑LPP group (180 ± 72 vs. 159 ± 54 min, p = 0.194). There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative pain, complications, average length of stay in hospital (7.48 ± 2.86 vs. 6.33 ± 2.04 days) or success rate., Conclusion: This study shows no significant reduction in operating time in the R‑LPP group with an equal rate of complications. It could be shown that there is no disadvantage for the patients undergoing R‑LPP directly after the implementation of a robotic system.