Retroperitoneal versus transepritoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for postero-lateral renal masses: an international multicenter analysis

A novel mini-retractor for retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

Retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy (RLPN) is the premier treatment for localized renal tumors despite narrow operation space. Many efforts have been taken to facilitate the operation of RLPN, but the optimal resolution remains debatable.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the feasibility of using Mini-lap to improve workspace and surgical vision in RLPN.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A multicenter retrospective review of 51 patients who underwent RLPN with Mini-lap from January 2018 to December 2020 was conducted.

SURGICAL PROCEDURE

Standard RLPN under three poles was performed in all cases. We highlighted the usage of Mini-lap (Teleflex Minilap percutaneous Surgical System) as a novel retractor in RLPN.

OUTCOME AND MEASUREMENTS AND STATICAL ANALYSIS

Demographics, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

All 51 cases completed RLPN with three ports successfully and no conversion to open surgery. The mean diameter of tumors was (3.53 ± 1.05) cm, in which 62.7% (32/51) were located anteriorly. The operation time and warm ischemic time (WIT) were (86.7 ± 15.9) min and (25.6 ± 5) min respectively. Minor complications (Clavien grade 1-2) occurred in 6 cases. The limitations were small sample size, retrospective design, and absence of control.

CONCLUSIONS

Mini-lap could be used as a mini-retractor in RLPN, sparing extra assistant ports, expanding workspace, and optimizing vision.

PATIENT SUMMARY

With highlights of larger workspace and less instrument interference, mini-lap could be applied in retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.

Comparison of the perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic transperitoneal versus retraperitoneal partial nephrectomy for posterior-lateral renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The study aims to assess the available literature and compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for posterior-lateral renal tumors using transperitoneal (TP) and retroperitoneal (RP) approaches. Systematically searched the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases for literature. Eligible studies were those that compared TP-RAPN and RP-RAPN for posterior-lateral renal tumors. The data from the included studies were analyzed and summarized using Review Manager 5.3, which involved comparing baseline patient and tumor characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes. The analysis included five studies meeting the inclusion criteria, with a total of 1440 patients (814 undergoing RP-RAPN and 626 undergoing TP-RAPN). Both groups showed no significant differences in age, gender, BMI, R.E.N.A.L. score, and tumor size. Notably, compared to TP-RAPN, the RP-RAPN group demonstrated shorter operative time (OT) (MD: 17.25, P = 0.01), length of hospital stay (LOS) (MD: 0.37, P < 0.01), and lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (MD: 15.29, P < 0.01). However, no significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of warm ischemia time (WIT) (MD: -0.34, P = 0.69), overall complications (RR: 1.25, P = 0.09), major complications (the Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ 3) (RR: 0.97, P = 0.93), and positive surgical margin (PSM) (RR: 1.06, P = 0.87). The systematic review and meta-analysis suggests RP-RAPN may be more advantageous for posterior-lateral renal tumors in terms of OT, EBL, and LOS, but no significant differences were found in WIT, overall complications, major complications, and PSM. Both surgical approaches are safe, but a definitive advantage remains uncertain.

Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) can be performed either by a transperitoneal (TP) or a retroperitoneal (RP) approach. However, the superiority of one approach over the other is not established. Hence, the primary aim of this review was to compare perioperative outcomes between these two surgical approaches.

METHODS

Literature was systematically searched to identify studies reporting perioperative outcomes following TP RAPN and RP RAPN. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023399496). The primary outcome was comparing complication rates between the two approaches.

RESULTS

This review included 22 studies, 5675 patients, 2524 in the RP group, and 3151 in the TP group. The overall complications were significantly lower in the RP group [Odds ratio (OR) 0.80 (0.67, 0.95), p = 0.01]. However, the rate of major complications was similar between the two groups. The operative time was significantly shorter with the RP group [Mean Difference (MD)-16.7 (- 22.3, - 11.0), p =  < 0.0001]. Estimated blood loss (EBL) and need for blood transfusion (BT) were significantly lower in the RP group. There was no difference between the two groups for conversion to radical nephrectomy [OR 0.66 (0.33, 1.33), p = 0.25] or open surgery [OR 0.68 (0.24, 1.92, p = 0.47] and positive surgical margins [OR 0.93 (0.66, 1.31, p = 0.69]. Length of stay (LOS) was shorter in the RP group [MD - 0.27 (- 0.45, - 0.08), p =  < 0.00001].

CONCLUSIONS

RP approach, compared to TP, has significantly lower complication rates, EBL, need for BT and LOS. However, due to the lack of randomized studies on the topic, further data is required.

Analysis of risk factors affecting the postoperative drainage after a laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a retrospective study

Purpose

Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) remains the most commonly used measure for treating localized renal cell cancer (RCC) with an increasing incidence of RCC ever since the 1990s. This study aimed to identify risk factors that affect the postoperative time of drainage and total drainage volume after LPN.

Method

The clinical data of 612 RCC patients who received LPN from January 2012 to December 2022 in our hospital, including the postoperative drainage time and total drainage volume, were retrospectively analyzed. Univariable and multivariable linear regression and correlation analyses were used to identify the correlations between 21 factors, which include gender, age, history of alcohol consumption, family history of RCC, body weight, body mass index (BMI), and operation time, postoperative drainage time, and total drainage volume.

Results

The mean time of drainage was 3.52 ± 0.71 days (range: 2 to 8 days), with an average total drainage volume of 259.83 ± 72.64 mL (range: 50 to 620 mL). Both univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses revealed several statistically significant associations. Gender (p = 0.04), age (p = 0.008), smoking history (p < 0.001), diabetes (p = 0.032), operation time (p = 0.014), and BMI (p = 0.023) were identified as significant factors associated with the time of drainage. On the other hand, age (p = 0.008), smoking history (p < 0.001), diabetes (p = 0.006), and BMI (p = 0.016) emerged as independent risk factors influencing the total drainage volume.

Conclusion

The duration of postoperative drainage was found to be associated with gender, age, smoking history, diabetes, operation time, and BMI. In contrast, the total drainage volume was primarily influenced by age, smoking history, diabetes, and high BMI following LPN. For patients with these conditions, meticulous attention to hemostasis and bleeding control is crucial during the perioperative period.

First Comparison of Retroperitoneal Versus Transperitoneal Robot-Assisted Nephroureterectomy with Bladder Cuff: A Single Center Study

INTRODUCTION

After recent presentation of the first complete robot-assisted retroperitoneal nephroureterectomy with bladder cuff (RRNU) for patients with upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC), we aimed to compare this new surgical technique with robot-assisted transperitoneal nephroureterectomy (TRNU) representing the current standard of care.

METHODS

Robot-assisted nephroureterectomies (NUs) were retrospectively analyzed and compared based on two groups: transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approach. Baseline data were collected for patient demographics, tumor characteristics, intra- (EAUiaiC) and postoperative (Clavien-Dindo) complications, and perioperative variables. Tumor characteristics included grade of malignancy, clinical stage, and surgical margin status. Short-term follow-up data including 30-day readmission rates were collected. Statistical analyses were performed assuming a significant p-value of < 0.05.

RESULTS

The analysis includes perioperative patient data after proven UTUC of 24 TRNU versus 12 RRNU (mean age: 70 versus 71 years; BMI: 25.9 versus 26.1 kg/m²; CCI score ≥ 4: 83% versus 75%; ASA score ≥ 3: 37% vs 33%). Intraoperative (16.4% vs 0%, p = 0.35) and postoperative (25% vs 12.5%, p = 0.64) complications demonstrated no significant discrepancy. Notably, RRNU demonstrated significantly shorter surgery time (p < 0.05) and length of stay (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in histopathological tumor characteristics, whereas significantly more lymph nodes were removed through RRNU (11.0±3.3 vs. 6.4±5.1, p < 0.05). Finally, no statistical difference was shown in short-term follow-up.

CONCLUSION

We report the first head-to-head comparison between RRNU and TRNU. RRNU proves to be a safe and feasible approach which appears to be non-inferior to TRNU. RRNU expands the spectrum of minimally invasive treatment options, particularly for patients with major previous abdominal surgery.

Management of renal cell carcinoma in transplant kidney: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

After transplantation, approximately 10% of renal cell carcinomas are detected in graft kidneys. These tumors (gRCC) present surgeons with the difficulty of finding a treatment that guarantees both oncological clearance and maintenance of function. We conducted a systematic review and an individual patient data meta-analysis on the oncology, safety and functional outcomes of the available treatments for gRCC.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic search was performed across MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science including any study reporting perioperative, functional and survival outcomes for patients undergoing graft nephrectomy (GN), partial nephrectomy (PN) or thermal ablation (TA) for gRCC. Quade's ANCOVA, Spearman Rho and Pearson χ², Kaplan-Meier, Log-rank and Standard Cox regression and other tests were used to compare treatments. Studies' quality was evaluated using a modified version of Newcastle Ottawa Scale.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A number of 29 studies (357 patients) were included. No differences between TA and PN were found in terms of safety, functional and oncological outcomes for T1a gRCCs. When applied to pT1b gRCC, PN showed no difference in complications, progression or cancer-specific deaths compared to smaller lesions; PN validity for pT2 gRCCs should be considered unverified due to lack of sufficient evidence. The efficacy and safety of PN or TA for multiple gRCC remain controversial. In case of non-functioning, large (T≥2), complicated or metastatic gRCCs, GN appears to be the most reasonable choice. Quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Studies with large cohorts and longer follow-up are still needed to clarify oncological and functional differences.

CONCLUSIONS

PN and TA might be offered as a nephron-sparing treatment in patients with T1a gRCC. There is no significant difference between these options and GN in terms of oncological outcomes and complications. PN and TA offer similar functional outcomes and graft preservation. PN for T1b gRCC seems feasible and safe, but its validity should be considered unverified.

Single-port robotic partial nephrectomy: impact on perioperative outcomes and hospital stay

Single-port (SP) robotic surgery is a novel technology and is at the beginning of its adoption curve in urology. The goal of this narrative review is to provide an overview of SP-robotic partial nephrectomy (PN) 4 years after the introduction of the da Vinci SP dedicated platform, focusing on perioperative outcomes, length of stay, and surgical technique. A nonsystematic review of the literature was conducted. The research included the most updated articles that referred to SP robotic PN. Since its commercial release in 2018, several institutions have reproduced robotic PN by using the SP platform, both via a transperitoneal and a retroperitoneal approach. The published SP-robotic PN series are generally based on preliminary experiences by surgeons who had previous experience with conventional multi-arms robotic platforms. The reported outcomes are encouraging. Overall, three studies reported that SP-robotic PN cases had nonsignificantly different operative time, estimated blood loss, overall complications rate, and length of stay compared to the conventional 'multi-arms' robotic PN. However, in all these series, renal masses treated by SP had overall lower complexity. Moreover, two studies underlined decreased postoperative pain as a major pro of adopting the SP system. This should reduce/avoid the need for opioids after surgery. No study compared SP-robotic versus multi-arms robotic PN in cost-effectiveness. Published experience with SP-robotic PN has reported the feasibility and safety of the approach. Preliminary results are encouraging and at least noninferior with respect to those from the multi-arms series. Prospective comparative studies with long-term oncologic and functional results are awaited to draw more definitive conclusions and better establish the more appropriate indications of SP robotics in the field of PN.

Comparison of perioperative outcomes following transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a propensity-matched analysis of VCQI database

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative outcomes following retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPRAPN) and transperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (TPRAPN).

METHODS

With this Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative (VCQI) database, study propensity scores were calculated according to the surgical access (TPRAPN and RPRAPN) for the following independent variables, i.e., age, sex, side of the surgery, RENAL nephrometry scores (RNS), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and serum creatinine. The study's primary outcome was the comparison of trifecta between the two groups.

RESULTS

In this study, 309 patients who underwent RPRAPN were matched with 309 patients who underwent TPRAPN. The two groups matched well for age, sex, tumor side, polar location of the tumor, RNS, preoperative creatinine and eGFR. Operative time and warm ischemia time were significantly shorter with RPRAPN. Intraoperative blood loss and need for blood transfusion were lower with RPRAPN. There was a significantly higher number of intraoperative complications with RPRAPN. However, there was no difference in the two groups for postoperative complications. Trifecta outcomes were better with RPRAPN (70.2% vs. 53%, p < 0.0001) compared to TPRAPN. We noted no significant change in overall results when controlled for tumor location (anteriorly or posteriorly). The surgical approach, tumor size and RNS were identified as independent predictors of trifecta on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

RPRAPN is associated with superior perioperative outcomes in well-selected patients compared to TPRAPN. However, the data for the retroperitoneal approach were contributed by a few centers with greater experience with this technique, thus limiting the generalizability of the results of this study.

Retroperitoneal Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Comparative Outcomes

Context

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) has gained increasing popularity as primary minimally invasive surgical treatment for localized renal tumors, and it has preferably been performed with a transperitoneal approach. However, the retroperitoneal approach represents an alternative approach given potential advantages.

Objective

To provide an updated analysis of the comparative outcomes of retroperitoneal RAPN (R-RAPN) versus transperitoneal RAPN (T-RAPN).

Evidence acquisition

A systematic review of the literature was performed up to September 2021 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. A sensitivity analysis was performed considering only matched-pair studies.

Evidence synthesis

Seventeen studies, which were published between 2013 and 2021, were retrieved. None of them was a randomized clinical trial. Among the 6,266 patients included in the meta-analysis, 2261 (36.1%) and 4,005 (63.9%) underwent R-RAPN and T-RAPN, respectively. No significant difference was found in terms of baseline features. The T-RAPN group presented a higher rate of male patients (odds ratio [OR]: 0.86, p = 0.03) and larger tumor size (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 0.2 cm; p = 0.003). The R-RAPN group reported more frequent posterior renal masses (OR: 0.23; p < 0.0001). The retroperitoneal approach presented lower estimated blood loss (WMD: 30.41 ml; p = 0.001), shorter operative time (OT; WMD: 20.36 min; p = 0.0001), and shorter length of stay (LOS; WMD: 0.35 d; p = 0.002). Overall complication rates were 13.7% and 16.05% in the R-RAPN and T-RAPN groups, respectively (OR: 1.32; p = 0.008). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding major (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥3 grade) complication rate, “pentafecta” achievement, as well as positive margin rates. When considering only matched-pair studies, no difference between groups was found in terms of baseline characteristics. Posterior renal masses were more frequent in the R-RAPN group (OR: 0.6; p = 0.03). Similar to the analysis of the entire cohort, R-RAPN reported lower EBL (WMD: 35.56 ml; p < 0.0001) and a shorter OT (WMD: 18.31 min; p = 0.03). Overall and major complication rates were similar between the two groups. The LOS was significantly lower for R-RAPN (WMD: 0.46 d; p = 0.02). No statistically significant difference was found between groups in terms of overall PSM rates.

Conclusions

R-RAPN offers similar surgical outcomes to T-RAPN, and it carries potential advantages in terms of shorter OT and LOS. Available evidence remains limited by the lack of randomized clinical trials.

Patient summary

In this review of the literature, we looked at comparative outcomes of two surgical approaches to robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. We found that the retroperitoneal technique offers similar surgical outcomes to the transperitoneal one, with potential advantages in terms of shorter operative time and length of hospital stay.

Comparison of Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for Patients With Complete Upper Pole Renal Tumors

OBJECTIVES

We compared the outcomes of transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (TRPN) and retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RRPN) for complete upper pole renal masses (1 point for the "L" component of the RENAL scoring system).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent either TRPN or RRPN from 2013 to 2016. Baseline demographics and perioperative, functional, and oncological results were compared. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors related to pentafecta achievement (ischemia time ≤25 min, negative margin, perioperative complication free, glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) preservation >90%, and no chronic kidney disease upstaging).

RESULTS

No significant differences between TRPN vs. RRPN were noted for operating time (110 vs. 114 min, p = 0.870), renal artery clamping time (19 vs. 18 min, p = 0.248), rate of positive margins (0.0% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.502), postoperative complication rates (25.0% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.140). TRPN was associated with a more estimated blood loss (50 vs. 40 ml, p = 0.004). There were no significant differences in pathologic variables, rate of eGFR decline for postoperative 12-month (9.0% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.449) functional follow-up. Multivariate analysis identified that only RENAL score (odd ratio: 0.641; 95% confidence interval: 0.455-0.904; p = 0.011) was independently associated with the pentafecta achievement.

CONCLUSIONS

For completely upper pole renal masses, both TRPN and RRPN have good and comparable results. Both surgical approaches remain viable options in the treatment of these cases.

Prostate cancer treatment and the relationship of androgen deprivation therapy to cognitive function

Prostate cancer is the second most common form of cancer in men. For advanced, high risk prostate cancer, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the preferred treatment and can induce remission, but resistance to ADT brings biochemical recurrence and progression of cancer. ADT brings adverse effects such as erectile dysfunction, decreased libido, and diminished physical strength. It is estimated that between 25 and 50% of men on ADT manifest some form of cognitive dysfunction that may be self-reported or reported by a family member. There is concern that impaired cognitive function with ADT is due to loss of testosterone support. Testosterone and its metabolites are known to possess neuroprotective properties. While a direct causal relationship between ADT and cognitive decline in prostate cancer patients has not been established, this review describes the controversy surrounding the possible connection between ADT and neurocognitive deterioration. The cellular and molecular mechanisms believed to underlie the protection of neuronal integrity by androgens are discussed. Results from animal models and human clinical studies are presented. Finally, we call attention to lifestyle modifications that may minimize cognitive issues in prostate cancer patients.