Introduction: The treatment of large renal stones in children can be challenging often requiring combination therapy and multiple procedures. The purpose of this video is to describe our technique of robotic nephrolithotomy and pyelolithotomy for complex renal stone disease in children, and to demonstrate the utility of the robotic ultrasound probe to aid with stone localization. Materials and Methods: Robotic nephrolithotomy/pyelolithotomy was carried out in four consecutive patients. A robotic ultrasound probe (Hitachi-Aloka, Tokyo, Japan) under console surgeon control was used in all cases. Results: Two patients underwent robotic pyelolithotomy, one patient underwent robotic nephrolithotomy, whilst the fourth patient underwent robotic pyelolithotomy and nephrolithotomy along with Y-V pyeloplasty for concurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Mean operative time, blood loss and hospital stay was 216 minutes, 37.5 mL and 2 days, respectively. The robotic ultrasound probe aided identification of calculi within the kidney in all cases. For nephrolithotomy it was helpful in planning the incision for nephrotomy. After nephrotomy or pyelotomy, stones were removed using a combination of robotic Maryland forceps, fenestrated grasper or Prograsp. Antegrade nephroscopy introduced through a laparoscopic port was used in all patients for confirmation of residual stone status. Two patients did not require a ureteral stent in the post-operative period. One patient had a minor complication (Clavien Grade 2 - dislodged malecot catheter). All patients were stone free at last follow-up. Conclusions: Robotic nephrolithotomy and pyelolithotomy with utilization of the robotic ultrasound probe offers a one-stop solution for complex renal stones with excellent stone-free rates.

Objectives To examine the effect of surgical approach on perioperative morbidity and mortality after partial nephrectomy. Materials and Methods Within the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, patients who underwent RAPN or LPN between October 2008 and December 2009 were identified. Propensity-based matching was performed to adjust for potential baseline differences between the two groups. The rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications, blood transfusions, prolonged length of stay, and in-hospital mortality, stratified according to RAPN vs. LPN, were compared. Results Overall, 851 (72.5%) patients underwent RAPN and 323 (27.5%) underwent LPN. For RAPN and LPN respectively, the following rates were recorded in the propensity-score matched cohort: blood transfusions, 4.5 vs. 6.8% (p = 0.223); intraoperative complications, 5.2 vs. 2.6% (p = 0.096); postoperative complications, 10.6 vs. 13.5% (p = 0.268); prolonged length of stay, 6.8 vs. 9.4% (p = 0.238); in-hospital mortality, 0.0 vs. 0.0%. Conclusions RAPN has supplanted LPN as the predominant minimally invasive surgical approach for renal masses. Perioperative outcomes after RAPN and LPN are comparable. Interpretation of these findings needs to take into account the lack of adjustment for case complexity and surgical expertise.