Paediatric Surgery (Ukraine). 2025. 2(87): 28-32. doi: 10.15574/PS.2025.2(87).2832
Stasyshyn A. R.¹, Shevchuk D. V.^2,3, Dvorakevych A. O.², Guraevsky A. A.¹, Kalinchuk O. O.², Stasyshyn N. A.¹, Guraevsky A.-D. A.^2
1Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Ukraine
²First Medical Union of Lviv, Ukraine
³Ivan Franko Zhytomyr State University, Ukraine

For citation: Stasyshyn AR, Shevchuk DV, Dvorakevych AO, Guraevsky AA, Kalinchuk OO, Stasyshyn NA, Guraevsky A-DA. (2025). Analysis of early and immediate results of 180 robotic operations in adults and children. Paediatric Surgery (Ukraine). 2(87): 28-32. doi: 10.15574/PS.2025.2(87).2832.
Article received: Jan 17, 2025. Accepted for publication: Jun 10, 2025.

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.
Keywords: robotic surgery, minimally invasive surgeries, new in surgery, children.

REFERENCES

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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