Pediatric Robotic Versus Open Pyeloplasty

January 8, 2024 updated by: Benjamin Whittam, Indiana University

Pediatric Robotic Versus Open Pyeloplasty: A Pilot Randomized Control Study

The objective is conduct a pilot randomized controlled trial comparing robotic and open techniques for surgical correction of congenital UPJ obstruction (pyeloplasty) in pediatric patients. This study will serve as a proof of concept trial to demonstrate feasibility of recruiting pediatric patients to participate in a randomized study for surgical procedures and delineate patient-centered outcomes. Should this study prove randomization is feasible, a randomized comparative effectiveness trial with sufficient power to determine whether open or robotic-assisted pyeloplasty has superior patient-centered outcomes will be pursued.

Study Overview

Status

Terminated

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Technological innovations are an ongoing reality in clinical medicine, most dramatically in the operating room. Each advance is often heralded as an improvement in patient care, promising to correct deficiencies and advance standard operative procedures. Unfortunately, these new technologies often lack sufficient evidence to support such claims. Robotic assisted laparoscopic (RAL) surgery continues to gain popularity among pediatric surgical specialists, particularly for reconstructive procedures such as correction of ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction or vesicoureteral reflux (VUR).In these operations, where traditional open surgery yields a nearly 95% clinical success rate it is difficult to demonstrate improvement with a new surgical technique. Despite these impressive outcomes with the open approach many pediatric urologists are shifting towards newer RAL approaches, claiming faster recovery and improved cosmesis with a nominal increase in surgical cost.

There is a striking dearth of comparative effectiveness research in pediatric surgical specialties, especially given the wide range of available therapies for a variety of surgical problems. Conducting randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions can be very difficult, especially in the pediatric population.

Currently, all studies of pediatric robotic surgery have focused on traditional outcomes, e.g., length of stay, pain scores, pain medication usage, scar perception, cost analysis, and capital gains benefits. While these measures are important to study, the investigators believe that researchers must also focus on patients' treatment experiences or patients' evaluations of their own outcomes. By focusing on these 'patient-centered outcomes' the investigators will be able to improve outcomes from surgical procedures in ways that are most important to patients and their families.

We propose a pilot randomized controlled trial comparing robotic and open techniques for surgical correction of congenital UPJ obstruction (pyeloplasty) in pediatric patients. This study will serve as a proof of concept trial to demonstrate feasibility of recruiting pediatric patients to participate in a randomized study for surgical procedures and delineate patient-centered outcomes. Should this study prove randomization is feasible, the investigators will seek funding to conduct a large, randomized comparative effectiveness trial with sufficient power to determine whether open or robotic-assisted pyeloplasty has superior patient-centered outcomes.

The investigators propose to accomplish these goals with the following Specific Aims:

Aim 1: Utilize novel patient-centered research methods to:

  • Identify outcomes of importance to patients and families related to pediatric pyeloplasty.
  • Determine patient and family preferences regarding acceptability of randomization and blinding of pediatric surgical patients and construct a recruitment approach to achieve enrollment.

Aim 2: Conduct a randomized pilot study with goal of enrolling ten to twenty pediatric patients (age 2 - 8 years) to either open or robotic pyeloplasty for treatment of primary UPJ obstruction.

Sub Aim 2a: Collect preliminary data regarding the patient-centered outcomes identified in Aim 1.

Sub Aim 2b: Evaluate the effectiveness of the recruitment approach for randomized surgical studies developed in Aim 1.

The investigators believe that the use of innovative and novel patient-centered research methods will lead to a significant breakthrough in developing a recruitment approach that is both acceptable to pediatric patients/families and optimizes participant willingness to participate in RCTs of surgical interventions. Additionally these same innovative research methods will allows the investigators to explore what outcomes are meaningful to patients and families, which will hopefully allow the care team to counsel patients and families in a way that maximizes their chances of achieving patient- and family-centered goals.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

11

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact Backup

Study Locations

  • United States
    • Indiana
      • Indianapolis, Indiana, United States, 46201
        • Riley Children's Hospital

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

2 years to 8 years (Child)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

For Aim 2:

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Primary UPJ obstruction diagnosed by scan and presenting to the pediatric urology clinic for evaluation
  • Patient between age 2 - 8 years old

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Serious comorbidities (cardiovascular or respiratory disease, or other congenital anomalies requiring surgical intervention).
  • BMI greater than the 95th %tile for age.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Other
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Double

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Robotic Surgery
Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty (RALP), standard of care treatment option for UPJ obstruction
Device: Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty (RALP)
Robotic approach with the da Vinci Surgical System for the surgical correction of UPJ obstruction
Active Comparator: Open Surgery
Open Pyeloplasty (OP), standard of care treatment option for UPJ obstruction
Procedure: Open Pyeloplasty (OP)
Open approach for the surgical correction of UPJ obstruction

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Length of Hospital Stay (days)
Time Frame: up to 1 week post op
Number of inpatient hospital days post surgery obtained via retrospective chart review by RA
up to 1 week post op
Pain Medication Use (dose/frequency)
Time Frame: up to 1 week post op
Pain medication use during hospitalization obtained via retrospective chart review by RA. Dose recorded in mg and frequency recorded as number of doses administered in 24 hour period
up to 1 week post op
Surgical complications
Time Frame: up to 1 year post op
Complications during hospitalization obtained via retrospective chart review by RA, using Clavian-Dindo classification
up to 1 year post op
Total Hospital Charges and Estimated Costs
Time Frame: up to 1 week post op
PHIS (Pediatric Health information System) database query for charge and cost data submitted by the hospital for surgery and subsequent hospitalization
up to 1 week post op
Patient Experience
Time Frame: 2 week post op follow up
Participant to complete questionnaire with targeted questions on: Side effects of medication and impact; Experience of having a temporary ureteral stent; Ease of removing stent; Return to activity; Financial burden reported by family. No scale or scoring utilized to assess outcome.
2 week post op follow up
Time until parental return to work
Time Frame: 2 week post op follow up
Number of days parent out of work after operation obtained by parent report. No scale or scoring utilized to assess outcome.
2 week post op follow up
Pain Scores
Time Frame: up to 2 week post op follow up
Obtained from hospital record and participant report post discharge via the FLACC (behavioral scale for scoring postoperative pain in young children). FLACC score range: minimum "0" ( comfortable) and "10" (severe discomfort)
up to 2 week post op follow up
Scar perception
Time Frame: up to 3 month follow up visit (18 weeks post op)
Participant to complete the Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire (PSAQ). PSAQ with sub scales with scoring 1 (most favorable) to 4 (least favorable). Subscales: Appearance minimum " 9" and maximum "36";Consciousness minimum " 6" and maximum "24"; Satisfaction with Appearance minimum "8" and maximum "32"; Satisfaction with Symptoms minimum "5" and maximum "20"
up to 3 month follow up visit (18 weeks post op)
Quality of Life (post intervention)
Time Frame: up to 3 month follow up visit (18 weeks post op)
Participant to complete Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory (GCBI). 24 question 5 point Likert scale 1 (much better) to 5 (much worse) with scoring range 24 to 120
up to 3 month follow up visit (18 weeks post op)

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Indiana University

Collaborators

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Benjamin Whittam, MD, Riley Children's Health, Indiana University Health, Pediatric Urology

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

October 24, 2017

Primary Completion (Actual)

November 14, 2019

Study Completion (Actual)

June 23, 2021

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

November 10, 2020

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 7, 2021

First Posted (Actual)

May 13, 2021

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

January 10, 2024

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 8, 2024

Last Verified

January 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 1403886306

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

Yes

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Pediatric Urology

Clinical Trials on Open Pyeloplasty (OP)

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Sri Lanka

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

3
Subscribe