Robot-assisted resection of renal tumor in children and comparison with laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) is being performed with increasing frequency in pediatric oncology. We report our experience with RAS for renal tumors in children and compare the outcomes between RAS and laparoscopic surgery (LAS).

METHODS

A total of 23 patients with renal tumor who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) between January 2020 and December 2023 were included in the study. The inclusion criteria enrolled in this study was unilateral tumors with maximum tumor diameter less than 10 cm. Patients who had enlarged lymph node, venous thrombosis, preoperative tumor rupture, bilateral renal tumor, or extrarenal extension on imaging were deemed contraindications and excluded. Patient demographics, operative details, postoperative outcomes and follow-up were recorded.

RESULTS

Among these patients, 17 underwent RAS and 6 underwent LAS. In the RAS group, the median age was 64 months (range, 9-156) with a median weight of 19.48 kg (range, 8.4-46.5); the maximum tumor diameter at operation was 55.65 mm (range, 22-88); the operation time was 188.8 min (range, 120-210), the intraoperative blood loss was 20 ml (range, 5-50), and the length of postoperative hospital stay was 4 days (range 1-9). There was no significant difference in patients' age, weight, location, tumor size, histological pattern and operation time between the two groups (P > 0.05). The RAS group had a significantly less intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.026) and less length of postoperative stay (P = 0.01) than the LAS group.

CONCLUSION

Our initial experience suggested that RAS in pediatric renal tumor was feasible and safe, and it reduced surgical trauma and accelerate postoperative recovery for the patients. Due to the limitations of sample size and study quality, the clinical importance of these findings still needs to be further verified.

Radiomics and machine learning for renal tumor subtype assessment using multiphase computed tomography in a multicenter setting

OBJECTIVES

To distinguish histological subtypes of renal tumors using radiomic features and machine learning (ML) based on multiphase computed tomography (CT).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients who underwent surgical treatment for renal tumors at two tertiary centers from 2012 to 2022 were included retrospectively. Preoperative arterial (corticomedullary) and venous (nephrogenic) phase CT scans from these centers, as well as from external imaging facilities, were manually segmented, and standardized radiomic features were extracted. Following preprocessing and addressing the class imbalance, a ML algorithm based on extreme gradient boosting trees (XGB) was employed to predict renal tumor subtypes using 10-fold cross-validation. The evaluation was conducted using the multiclass area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Algorithms were trained on data from one center and independently tested on data from the other center.

RESULTS

The training cohort comprised n = 297 patients (64.3% clear cell renal cell cancer [RCC], 13.5% papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC), 7.4% chromophobe RCC, 9.4% oncocytomas, and 5.4% angiomyolipomas (AML)), and the testing cohort n = 121 patients (56.2%/16.5%/3.3%/21.5%/2.5%). The XGB algorithm demonstrated a diagnostic performance of AUC = 0.81/0.64/0.8 for venous/arterial/combined contrast phase CT in the training cohort, and AUC = 0.75/0.67/0.75 in the independent testing cohort. In pairwise comparisons, the lowest diagnostic accuracy was evident for the identification of oncocytomas (AUC = 0.57-0.69), and the highest for the identification of AMLs (AUC = 0.9-0.94) CONCLUSION: Radiomic feature analyses can distinguish renal tumor subtypes on routinely acquired CTs, with oncocytomas being the hardest subtype to identify.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Radiomic feature analyses yield robust results for renal tumor assessment on routine CTs. Although radiologists routinely rely on arterial phase CT for renal tumor assessment and operative planning, radiomic features derived from arterial phase did not improve the accuracy of renal tumor subtype identification in our cohort.

Open versus Minimally Invasive Partial Nephrectomy: Trends and Outcomes from a Wide National Population-Based Database

Objectives: To investigate temporal trends and overall complication rates among open partial nephrectomy (OPN) and minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN), including the impact of social determinants of health (SDOH) on postoperative outcomes. Methods: Patients who underwent OPN or MIPN between 2011 and 2021 were retrospectively analyzed by using PearlDiver-Mariner, an all-payer insurance claims database. The International Classification of Diseases diagnosis and procedure codes were used to identify the type of surgical operation, patient's characteristics (age, sex, region, insurance plan), postoperative complications and SDOH, categorized in education, healthcare, environmental, social, and economic domains. Outcomes were compared using multivariable regression models. Results: Overall, 65,325 patients underwent OPN (n = 23,377) or MIPN (n = 41,948). OPN adoption declined over the study period, whereas that of MIPN increased from 24% to 34% (p = 0.001). The 60-day postoperative complication rate was 15% for the open and 9% for the minimally invasive approach. Approximately 16% and 11% of patients reported at least one SDOH at baseline for OPN and MIPN, respectively. SDOH were associated with higher odds of postoperative complications (OPN = OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.01-1.25; MIPN = OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.18-1.46). The open approach showed a significantly higher risk of postoperative complications (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.54-1.70) compared to the minimally invasive one. Conclusions: Our findings confirm that MIPN is gradually replacing OPN, which carries a higher risk of complications. SDOH are significant predictors of postoperative complications following PN, regardless of the approach.

Comparing robotic and open partial nephrectomy under the prism of surgical precision: a meta-analysis of the average blood loss rate as a novel variable

Exploration of surgical precision in robotic procedures is extensive, yet lacks a unified framework for comparability. This study examines tissue handling precision by comparing the per-minute blood loss rate between robotic and open partial nephrectomy. A literature search from August 2022 to June 2024 identified 43 relevant studies providing data on estimated blood loss and procedure duration. The expected values and standard errors of these variables were used to compute the per-minute blood loss rate (Q). Meta-analytical methods estimated pooled and subgroup-level mean differences, favoring robotic surgery (MDQ = - 1.043 ml/min, CI95% = [- 1.338; - 0.747]). Subgroup analyses by publication year, patient matching, referral center count, and ROBINS-I status consistently supported this advantage. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the above benefit in studies with increased accuracy in reported results (MDQ = - 0.957 ml/min, CI95% = [- 1.269; - 0.646]), low risk of bias involving matched comparisons (MDQ = - 0.563 ml/min, CI95% = [- 0.716; - 0.410]), large sample sizes and increased statistical power (MDQ = - 0.780 ml/min, CI95% = [- 1.134; - 0.425]), and multicenter analyses with patient matching (MDQ = - 0.481 ml/min, CI95% = [- 0.698; - 0.263]). The subsequent analysis of correlation between the original variables suggested a slight reduction in the robotic advantage when the latter were proportionally related. Multilevel meta-regression at both temporal and qualitative scales consistently indicated a comparative benefit of the robotic approach. Potentially, lower per-minute blood loss compared to open surgery suggests that robotic partial nephrectomy demonstrates enhanced precision in tissue handling.

Comparison of Perioperative, Functional, and Oncologic Outcomes of Open vs. Robot-Assisted Off-Clamp Partial Nephrectomy: A Propensity Scored Match Analysis

Off-clamp partial nephrectomy represents one of the latest developments in nephron-sparing surgery, with the goal of preserving renal function and reducing ischemia time. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the functional, oncologic, and perioperative outcomes between off-clamp robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (off-C RAPN) and off-clamp open partial nephrectomy (off-C OPN) through a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis. A 1:1 PSM analysis was used to balance variables potentially affecting postoperative outcomes. To report surgical quality, 1 year trifecta was used. Univariable Cox regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of trifecta achievement. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS) probabilities between groups. Overall, 542 patients were included. After PSM analysis, two homogeneous cohorts of 147 patients were obtained. The off-C RAPN cohort experienced shorter length of stay (LoS) (3.4 days vs. 5.4 days; p < 0.001), increased likelihoods of achieving 1 year trifecta (89.8% vs. 80.3%; p = 0.03), lower postoperative Clavien-Dindo ≤ 2 complications (1.3% vs. 18.3%, p < 0.001), and lower postoperative transfusion rates (3.4% vs. 12.2%, p = 0.008). At univariable analysis, the surgical approach (off-C RAPN vs. off-C OPN, OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.09-4.46, p = 0.02) was the only predictor of 1 year trifecta achievement. At Kaplan-Meier analysis, no differences were observed between the two groups in terms of OS (log-rank p = 0.451), CSS (log-rank p = 0.476), DFS (log-rank p = 0.678), and MFS (log-rank p = 0.226). Comparing RAPN and OPN in a purely off-clamp scenario, the minimally invasive approach proved to be a feasible and safe surgical approach, with a significantly lower LoS and minor rate of postoperative complications and transfusions as a result of improved surgical quality expressed by higher 1 year trifecta achievement.

Meta-analysis of clinical outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy and classical open partial nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) has emerged as a promising alternative to classical partial nephrectomy (CPN).

AIM

This study aimed to compare the outcomes of RAPN and CPN for treating localized renal tumors through a meta-analysis of available literature.

METHODS

Chinese databases, such as CNKI, Chinese Science and Technology Periodicals Database (VIP), and Wanfang Full-text Database, were searched using Chinese search terms, and all published articles on PubMed and Web of Science were searched using English search terms. Articles on Localized Renal Tumors were included. RevMan5.3 software was used for meta-analysis. The funnel plots were drawn using Stata software to assess publication bias.

OUTCOMES

This study aimed to identify the differences between robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy and classic partial nephrectomy in patients with localized renal tumors.

RESULTS

In total, 67 articles with 17 677 patients were included. The results demonstrate the advantages of RAPN over CPN for localized renal tumors. Compared to CPN and RAPN had significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay duration, incidence of perioperative complications, and proportion of patients requiring blood transfusion. Regarding surgical outcomes, RAPN showed more favorable results regarding the incidence of positive resection margins, postoperative decline in glomerular filtration rate (GFR), postoperative local recurrence rate, and proportion of Trifecta achieved. However, there was no significant difference between RAPN and CPN regarding 5-year tumor-specific survival rates.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The study suggests that robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy is a viable alternative to classic surgery for renal tumors.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

The strengths of this study are the use of a comprehensive search strategy and the inclusion of studies published in both English and Chinese. The limitations of this study are the small sample size and the need for long-term follow-up data.

CONCLUSION

RAPN and CPN have similar overall survival outcomes for treating localized renal tumors. However, RAPN may offer advantages in terms of perioperative outcomes and preservation of renal function. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and to identify the optimal surgical approach for individual patients.

Comparing the outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine the advantages and disadvantages of open (OPN), laparoscopic (LPN), and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) with particular attention to intraoperative, immediate postoperative, as well as longer-term functional and oncological outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-NMA guidelines. Binary data were compared using odds ratios (ORs). Mean differences (MDs) were used for continuous variables. ORs and MDs were extracted from the articles to compare the efficacy of the various surgical approaches. Statistical validity is guaranteed when the 95% credible interval does not include 1.

RESULTS

In total, there were 31 studies included in the NMA with a combined 7869 patients. Of these, 33.7% (2651/7869) underwent OPN, 20.8% (1636/7869) LPN, and 45.5% (3582/7689) RAPN. There was no difference for either LPN or RAPN as compared to OPN in ischaemia time, intraoperative complications, positive surgical margins, operative time or trifecta rate. The estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative complications and length of stay were all significantly reduced in RAPN when compared with OPN. The outcomes of RAPN and LPN were largely similar except the significantly reduced EBL in RAPN.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and NMA suggests that RAPN is the preferable operative approach for patients undergoing surgery for lower-staged RCC.

A systematic review of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy outcomes for advanced indications: Large tumors (cT2-T3), solitary kidney, completely endophytic, hilar, recurrent, and multiple renal tumors

Objective

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) has become widely used for treatment of renal cell carcinoma and it is expanding in the field of complex renal masses. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze outcomes of RAPN for completely endophytic renal masses, large tumors (cT2-T3), renal cell carcinoma in solitary kidney, recurrent tumors, completely endophytic and hilar masses, and simultaneous and multiple tumors.

Methods

A comprehensive search in the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases was performed in December 2022 for English language papers. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the role of RAPN in the setting of each category of complex renal masses considered. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the surgical and functional outcomes.

Results

After screening 1250 records, 43 full-text manuscripts were selected, comprising over 8500 patients. Twelve and thirteen studies reported data for endophytic and hilar renal masses, respectively. Five and three studies reported outcomes for cT2-T3 and solitary kidney patients, respectively. Four studies focused on redo-RAPN for recurrent tumors. Two studies investigated simultaneous bilateral renal masses and five reports focused on multiple tumor excision in ipsilateral kidney.

Conclusion

Over the past decade, evidence supporting the use of RAPN for the most challenging nephron-sparing surgery indications has continuously grown. Although limitations remain including study design and lack of detailed long-term functional and oncological outcomes, the adoption of RAPN for the included advanced indications is associated with favorable surgical outcomes with good preservation of renal function without compromising the oncological result. Certainly, a higher likelihood of complication might be expected when facing extremely challenging cases. However, none of these indications should be considered per se an exclusion criterion for performing RAPN. Ultimately, a risk-adapted approach should be employed.

Comparison of peri- and intraoperative outcomes of open vs robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the gold standard surgical treatment for resectable renal cell carcinoma (RCC) tumors. However, the decision whether a robotic (RAPN) or open PN (OPN) approach is chosen is often based on the surgeon's individual experience and preference. To overcome the inherent selection bias when comparing peri- and postoperative outcomes of RAPN vs. OPN, a strict statistical methodology is needed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We relied on an institutional tertiary-care database to identify RCC patients treated with RAPN and OPN between January 2003 and January 2021. Study endpoints were estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications, and trifecta. In the first step of analyses, descriptive statistics and multivariable regression models (MVA) were applied. In the second step of analyses, to validate initial findings, MVA were applied after 2:1 propensity-score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Of 615 RCC patients, 481 (78%) underwent OPN vs 134 (22%) RAPN. RAPN patients were younger and presented with a smaller tumor diameter and lower RENAL-Score sum, respectively. Median EBL was comparable, whereas LOS was shorter in RAPN vs. OPN. Both intraoperative (27 vs 6%) and Clavien-Dindo > 2 complications (11 vs 3%) were higher in OPN (both < 0.05), whereas achievement of trifecta was higher in RAPN (65 vs 54%; p = 0.028). In MVA, RAPN was a significant predictor for shorter LOS, lower rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications as well as higher trifecta rates. After 2:1 PSM with subsequent MVA, RAPN remained a statistical and clinical predictor for lower rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications and higher rates of trifecta achievement but not LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in baseline and outcome characteristics exist between RAPN vs. OPN, probably due to selection bias. However, after applying two sets of statistical analyses, RAPN seems to be associated with more favorable outcomes regarding complications and trifecta rates.

Last Resort from Nursing Shortage? Comparative Cost Analysis of Open vs. Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomies with a Focus on the Costs of Nursing Care

Despite perioperative advantages, robot-assisted surgery is associated with high costs. However, the lower morbidity of robotic surgery could lead to a lower nursing workload and cost savings. In this comparative cost analysis of open retroperitoneal versus robot-assisted transperitoneal partial nephrectomies (PN), these possible cost savings, including other cost factors, were quantified. Therefore, patient, tumor characteristics, and surgical results of all PN within two years at a tertiary referral center were retrospectively analyzed. The nursing effort was quantified by the local nursing staff regulation and INPULS^® intensive care and performance-recording system. Out of 259 procedures, 76.4% were performed robotically. After propensity score matching, the median total nursing time (2407.8 vs. 1126.8 min, p < 0.001) and daily nursing effort (245.7 vs. 222.6 min, p = 0.025) were significantly lower after robotic surgery. This resulted in mean savings of EUR 186.48 in nursing costs per robotic case, in addition to savings of EUR 61.76 due to less frequent administrations of erythrocyte concentrates. These savings did not amortize the higher material costs for the robotic system, causing additional expenses of EUR 1311.98 per case. To conclude, the nursing effort after a robotic partial nephrectomy was significantly lower compared to open surgery; however, this previously unnoticed savings mechanism alone could not amortize the overall increased costs.

Cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery vs open surgery in the context of partial nephrectomy for small kidney tumors

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery compared to open surgery in the context of partial nephrectomy for small kidney tumor management. This is a retrospective study using data from 395 patients operated on by either robot-assisted surgery (RAPN) or by open partial nephrectomy (OPN); one hospital performed RAPN exclusively and the second hospital, OPN exclusively. Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of the National Health Insurance System (NHIS) by considering the costs of the initial hospital stay and the cost of complications. Clinical outcome was defined by the avoidance of major complications during the 12 months postoperatively. Major complications were absent in 82% of patients in the OPN group and 93% of patients in the RAPN group, with 11% in favor of robotic assistance (p < 0.001). The average cost per patient, including the costs of complications, were, respectively, 9637 € and 8305 € for the OPN and RAPN groups. Robotic assistance was associated with a 1332 € lower cost (p < 0.001). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is estimated at - 12,039 €. From the perspective of the public payer, robotic assistance was associated with a lower rate of postoperative complications and a lower average cost per patient. Robotic-assisted surgery was an efficient alternative to open surgery in partial nephrectomy. Trial registration number: NCT05089006 (October 22, 2021).

Technical advances in the surgical management of Wilms tumors in children

Surgery is one of the cornerstones of Wilms tumor treatment. In this article, we present technical advancements that are finding their way into the armamentarium of pediatric cancer surgeons. We discuss the current approaches, challenges, opportunities, and future directions of minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic and robotics), image-guided surgery, and fluorescence-guided surgery. Furthermore, we discuss the use of intraoperative ultrasonography, as well as the use of new techniques to improve the quality of lymph node sampling.

Single-port versus multiport partial nephrectomy: a propensity-score-matched comparison of perioperative and short-term outcomes

The objective of this study was to compare the perioperative and short-term functional and oncological outcomes of single-port and multiport robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy using propensity-score analysis. We evaluated all patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy at our institution between January 2019 and October 2020. Patient demographics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were collected and analyzed. Propensity-score matching was performed on age, sex, body mass index, prior abdominal surgery, and nephrometry score using the optimal matching method. A post hoc sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the robustness of the results. In total, 48 and 238 patients underwent single-port and multiport robotic partial nephrectomy, respectively. Following propensity-score matching, 48 multiport cases were matched 1:1 to single-port cases. The single-port cohort had lower median opioid use at postoperative day 1 (4.6 vs 9.8 MME, p = 0.0209) and cumulative hospital stay (5.1 vs 9.3 MME, p = 0.0357). Single port also had a shorter median length of stay (1.4 vs 1.6 days, p = 0.0045), although the post hoc sensitivity analysis showed no difference between the groups [- 0.13 (95% CI; - 0.580, 0.315, p = 0.5607). There were no significant differences in operative time, estimated blood loss, ischemia time, transfusions received, or positive margin rates. In conclusion, based on our early experience, single-port robotic partial nephrectomy is a safe and acceptable alternative to multiport robotic partial nephrectomy, providing comparable perioperative and postoperative outcomes while reducing inpatient opioid use.

A survey of augmented reality methods to guide minimally invasive partial nephrectomy

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) has become the standard of care for localized kidney tumors over the past decade. The characteristics of each tumor, in particular its size and relationship with the excretory tract and vessels, allow one to judge its complexity and to attempt predicting the risk of complications. The recent development of virtual 3D model reconstruction and computer vision has opened the way to image-guided surgery and augmented reality (AR).

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to perform a systematic review to list and describe the different AR techniques proposed to support PN.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The systematic review of the literature was performed on 12/04/22, using the keywords "nephrectomy" and "augmented reality" on Embase and Medline. Articles were considered if they reported surgical outcomes when using AR with virtual image overlay on real vision, during ex vivo or in vivo MIPN. We classified them according to the registration technique they use.

RESULTS

We found 16 articles describing an AR technique during MIPN procedures that met the eligibility criteria. A moderate to high risk of bias was recorded for all the studies. We classified registration methods into three main families, of which the most promising one seems to be surface-based registration.

CONCLUSION

Despite promising results, there do not exist studies showing an improvement in clinical outcomes using AR. The ideal AR technique is probably yet to be established, as several designs are still being actively explored. More clinical data will be required to establish the potential contribution of this technology to MIPN.

Clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with renal hypothermia perfusion by renal artery balloon catheter in treating patients with complex renal tumors

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of renal hypothermic perfusion by renal artery balloon catheter during robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (P-RALPN) for patients with complex renal tumors.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively identified 45 patients with complex renal tumors who received standard robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (S-RALPN) and 11 patients treated with P-RALPN from September 2017 to October 2021. Preoperative patients’ characteristics and intraoperative surgical parameters including operating time, blood loss, hospitalization, pre- and post-surgical glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and postoperative survival time were collected and compared between the two groups. The patients’ body temperature, real-time kidney temperature, and short-term renal function were analyzed in the P-RALPN group.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference on median intraoperative estimated blood loss and postoperative hospitalization between the two groups. Patients who received P-RALPN had a slightly longer operative time than those who received S-RALPN (103.1 versus 125.9; p = 0.09). In the P-RALPN group, the volume of perfusion solution was 533.2 ml (range, 255.0–750.0 ml), the median temperature of kidney was 22.6°C (range, 21.7–24.1°C) after the kidney cools down, and the median minimum intraoperative temperature of patients was 36.1°C (range 35.2–36.7°C). The ischemia time in the S-RALPN group was markedly lower than that in the P-RALPN group (21.5 versus 34.8; p < 0.01). However, the loss of GFR was much higher for the S-RALPN group after the surgery. (28.9 versus 18.4; p < 0.01). Importantly, patients had similar postoperative survival time between the two groups (p = 0.42; HR = 0.27).

Conclusion

P-RALPN is a safe and feasible surgery in the treatment of patients with complex renal tumors, which provides a new operative approach for clinicians to treat these patients.

Clinical and oncological outcomes of open partial nephrectomy versus robot assisted partial nephrectomy over 15 years

Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the gold standard surgical treatment for localized kidney cancer. The objective of our study was to compare clinical and perioperative outcomes of open partial nephrectomy (OPN) and robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). We retrospectively collected all patients who underwent PN for kidney cancer between 2007 and 2019 at two French academic urology departments. Clinical and perioperative outcomes and complications were compared between the OPN group and the RAPN group. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared using the log-rank test. We included 405 patients. The maximum follow-up time was 13.6 years in the OPN group and 7.1 years in the RAPN group. The OPN group was associated with more blood loss and longer hospital stay (respectively, 287 ml vs. 62.1 ml; p < 0.001 and 8.54 days vs. 4.96 days; p < 0.001). Ischemia time was shorter in the OPN group (11.4 min vs. 16.9 min; p < 0.001). The rate of complications during hospitalization and after discharge from hospital was higher in the OPN group (respectively, n = 51 vs. 30; p = 0.031 and n = 31 vs. 14; p < 0.001). RFS and OS were similar in both groups. In our study, RAPN has better perioperative outcomes with shorter hospital stay and less blood loss but also fewer early and late complications. However, we did not find any difference in terms of RFS and OS.

[Robot-assisted surgery for renal cell carcinoma - today a standard?]

Twenty years have passed since the first reports on robot-assisted kidney tumor surgery in 2001. However, robotic surgery has not spread to all German urologic departments yet. Hence, one has to question whether robot-assisted kidney tumor surgery can be considered a standard today. Until now, no prospective randomized controlled trials have compared robot-assisted radical nephrectomy with the open or laparoscopic approach. Regardless, laparoscopy and robotics both have proven better perioperative and comparable oncological outcomes than with open nephrectomy. In direct comparison, robot-assisted nephrectomy has no additional benefits over the laparoscopic approach and is less cost-effective. However, reports on robot-assisted level III or IV vena cava tumor thrombectomies illustrate that robotic surgery can be superior to the laparoscopic approach in highly complex interventions. Likewise, no prospective randomized controlled trials have analyzed robot-assisted partial nephrectomy yet. When conducted by experienced surgeons, robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomies can also have lower morbidity compared to the open approach. No consensus has been reached when directly comparing robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. However, evidence is increasing that robot-assisted partial nephrectomy can offer additional benefits, especially for the treatment of highly complex endophytic renal tumors. Thereof, head-to-head comparisons are often impacted by patient- and tumor-related factors, as well as the learning curve of the surgeon, bed-side assistant and the annual caseload of the department. Hence, one has to conclude that robot-assisted kidney tumor surgery has evolved into a standard procedure with good results. The perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted surgery are superior to the open technique at a comparable oncological follow-up. Even if robot-assisted interventions are often more expensive than laparoscopic surgery due to higher costs of acquisition, robotics have the potential to gain superior results especially in very complex tumor surgery. Due to expiring patent protections, new manufacturers and the development of new technologies, the market of robotic surgery will most likely undergo significant changes and its costs will probably decrease within the next years.

Robotic surgery for cT2 kidney cancer: analysis of the National Cancer Database

Robotic surgery for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is increasingly adopted for cT1 disease, but its utilization for cT2 disease remains unexplored. We aimed to characterize the trend in robotic approach for cT2 RCC. The National Cancer Database was queried for patients who were diagnosed with cT2N0M0 RCC from 2010 to 2016 and underwent subsequent radical (RN) or partial (PN) nephrectomy. Analysis of treatment trends was performed and logistic regression (LR) undertaken for predictors of surgical approach. 21,258 patients met inclusion criteria for analysis; 1698 (8%) underwent a PN and 19,560 (92%) underwent RN. Use of robotics in PN increased 346% (12.3-42.6%) and 351% (6.2-21.8%) for RN during the studied time period. Robotic PN or RN was associated with shorter hospital stay compared to non-robotic approaches (p < 0.001). Academic institutions were more likely to perform a robotic procedure and the uninsured were less likely to receive robotic approach. There was no association between age, sex, race, or income and surgical approach. On LR, robotic approach was independently associated with academic institutions and a more recent year of diagnosis. There was no significant difference in the rate of positive margins, 30-day readmission, or 30/90-day mortality between approaches. Robotic PN and RN is becoming an increasingly popular approach in the treatment of cT2 RCC. Utilization of robotics is associated with academic institutions and results in a shorter hospital stay without significant differences rate of positive margins, readmission rates, or 30/90-day mortality.

Robot-assisted versus open radical nephroureterectomy for urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: A retrospective cohort study across ten years

PURPOSE

Radical nephroureterectomy is the gold standard of treatment for high-risk non-metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. However, the optimal surgical approach remains a controversial debate. This study compared the perioperative and oncological outcomes of open and robot-assisted radical nephroureterectomies.

METHODS

131 consecutive radical nephroureterectomies (66 robot-assisted nephroureterectomies vs. 65 open nephroureterectomies) for urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract at a single tertiary referral center were included from 2009 to 2019. The perioperative and oncological outcomes were compared between both surgical approaches, including logistic regression analysis, propensity score matching, Kaplan Meier analyses, and Cox regression models.

RESULTS

Overall, robot-assisted surgery had less blood loss (150 ml vs. 250, p = 0.004) and less positive surgical margins (1.5% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.004) at a comparable operating time (robotic 188min vs. 178). Any grade complications were more frequent after open surgery (40.9% vs. 63.1%, p = 0.011), and the length of stay was shorter after robotic nephroureterectomy (9 days vs. 12, p < 0.001). These differences remained significant in the propensity score matched analysis, except for the complication rates, which were still lower for the robotic approach, but no longer significant. At a median follow-up of 30.9 months (range 1.4-129.5), neither the progression-free survival (PFS, 2-year: robotic 66.7% vs. open 55.3%), nor the overall survival differed significantly (OS, 2-year: robotic 76.2% vs. open 68.4%). In the Cox regression, the surgical approach did not impact the PFS or OS. Lymph node metastases (HR 3.32, p = 0.008) had the strongest impact on the PFS besides patient age (HR 1.51 per 10 years, p = 0.025) and prior cystectomy (HR 2.42, p = 0.026) in the multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted radical nephroureterectomy had significant perioperative advantages at comparable oncological outcomes compared to open surgery for the treatment of urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract at a high volume center, experienced in robotic surgery.

Robot-assisted versus open radical cystectomy: A cohort study on perioperative outcomes accounting for stage selection bias and surgical experience

BACKGROUND

Most comparisons of robot-assisted (RARC) versus open radical cystectomy (ORC) for urothelial carcinoma do not factor the inherent stage selection bias or surgical experience.

METHODS

We compared the perioperative outcomes of 229 RARC and 335 ORC at a single tertiary referral centre with propensity score matching and multiple regression models, when controlling for tumour and patient characteristics, surgeon's experience and type of urinary diversion.

RESULTS

RARC had less major complications (19.8% vs. 34.1%) and ICU admissions (6.6% vs. 19.8%), with lower blood loss (400 vs. 500 ml) and transfusion rates. The operating time was longer (336 vs. 286 min), but decreased with surgeon's experience. RARC had less positive surgical margins (3% vs. 8.4%) and a higher lymph node count (14 vs. 11).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large single centre series comparing RARC with ORC controlling for stage selection bias and surgical experience, RARC proved significantly better outcomes, especially with intracorporeal urinary diversion.