Current controversies in pediatric urologic robotic surgery

Purpose of review Minimally invasive surgeries such as conventional laparoscopic surgery and robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) have significant advantages over the traditional open surgical approach including lower pain medication requirements and decreased length of hospitalization. However, open surgery has demonstrated better success rates and shorter surgery time when compared to the other modalities. Currently, it is unclear which approach has better long-term clinical outcomes, greater benefits and less cost. Recent findings There are limited studies in the literature comparing these three different surgical approaches. In this review, we will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of RALS compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for commonly performed pediatric urological procedures such as pyeloplasty, ureteral reimplantation, complete and partial nephrectomy, bladder augmentation and creation of continent catheterizable channels. Summary Although it is not yet possible to demonstrate the superiority of one single surgical modality over another, RALS has been shown to be feasible, well tolerated and advantageous in reconstructive urological procedures. With experience, the outcomes of RALS are improving, justifying its usage. However, cost remains a significant issue, limiting the accessibility of RALS, which in the future may improve with market competition and device innovation.