Defining the Pros and Cons of Open, Conventional Laparoscopy, and Robot-Assisted Pyeloplasty in a Developing Nation

Table 3

Summary of case series on robotic pyeloplasty.

Author	Year	Type of study	Number	Mean age (years)	Mean operative time (minutes)	Blood loss (mL)	Complications (%)	Hospital stay (days)	Success (%)
Gettman et al. [17]	2002	CC	9	NA	138.8	50	11.1	4.7	100
Peschel et al. [18]	2004	R	49	NA	124	50	0	5.5	100
Siddiq et al. [8]	2005	R	26	34.5	245	69	11.5	2	100
Mendez-Torres et al. [9]	2005	R	32	31.2	300	52	11.5	2	100
Palese et al. [10]	2005	R	38	39.3	225.6	77.3	10.5	2.9	94.7
Bernie et al.* [11]	2005	CR	7/7	32	324	60	28.5	2.5	100
Patel [12]	2005	R	50	31	122	40	0	1.1	100
Weise and Winfield* [20]	2006	CR	31/14	26	271	100	6	2.1	97
Link et al.* [21]	2006	CR	10/10	46.5	173.8	NA	10	NA	100
Atug et al. [13]	2006	R	44	32.8	219.4	50	0	1.1	100
Schwentner et al. [14]	2007	R	92	35.1	108	<50	3.3	4.57	96.7
Yanke et al. [22]	2008	R	29	41.2	196	39	13.7	2.2	100
Erdeljan et al. [15]	2008	R	55	na	171	57	1.8	2.3	95
Gupta et al. [19]	2010	R	85	24.8	121	45	9.4	2.5	96.5
Mufarrij et al. [16]	2008	R	140	38.5	217	59.4	9.2	2.1	95.7
Erdeljan et al. [23]	2010	R	90	na	167.7	53.4	5.5	2.53	93
Bird et al.* [24]	2011	CR	98/74	39.6	189	>50	5	2	100

R: retrospect; CC: case controlled; CR: comparative retrospect.
*comparative series comparing RP and CLP.