Comparisons of the safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for large angiomyolipomas: a propensity score-matched analysis

Management of renal sinus angiomyolipoma: modified robotic nephron-sparing surgery in a single center

BACKGROUND

Renal sinus angiomyolipoma (RSAML) is a rare and typically complex renal tumor. The objective is to present our single-center experience with a modified technique of robotic nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) for treating RSAML.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 15 patients with RSAMLs who were treated with robotic NSS at the Department of Urology of Tongji hospital, ranging from November 2018 to September 2022. Renal vessels and ureter were dissected. The outer part of RSAML was resected. The rest of tumor was removed by bluntly grasp, curettage and suction. Absorbable gelatin sponges were filled in the renal sinus. The preoperative parameters, operative measures and postoperative outcomes were all collected. Follow-up was performed by ultrasonography and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

RESULTS

Robotic NSS was successfully performed in all the patients, without any conversion to open surgery or nephrectomy. The mean operation time was 134.13 ± 40.56 min. The mean warm ischemia time was 25.73 ± 3.28 min. The median estimated blood loss was 100 [50, 270] ml and 1 patient required blood transfusion. The mean drainage duration was 5.77 ± 1.98 days. The median postoperative hospital stay was 6.90 [5.80, 8.70] days. Two patients experienced postoperative urinary tract infection (Clavien-Dindo Grade II). During the median follow-up of 25.53 ± 15.28 months, patients received 91.18% renal function preservation. No local recurrence occurred in all the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic NSS for RSAML is a complicated procedure that demands technical expertise and a well-designed strategy is critical in the operation. Treating RSAML with modified robotic NSS is safe, effective and feasible.

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.

Comparisons of the Safety and Effectiveness of Robot-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for Central Renal Angiomyolipomas: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Study

Objective: To compare the safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) vs laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) in the treatment of central renal angiomyolipomas (AMLs). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 103 patients who were treated with either RAPN or LPN for central AMLs between January 2017 and June 2022. Propensity scores were matched according to sex, age, laterality, body mass index, symptoms, diameter of tumor, location of tumor distribution, R.E.N.A.L score, preoperative hemoglobin, preoperative serum creatinine, preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate, chronic disease, previous abdominal surgery, preoperative selective arterial embolization, American Society of Anesthesiologists scale, and duration of follow-up, and after matching, perioperative and prognostic data of the two groups were compared. Results: A total of 57 patients underwent RAPN, and 46 patients underwent LPN. Before matching, there were more complex AMLs in the RAPN group, and R.E.N.A.L scores differed between the two groups (10 vs 9, p < 0.001). After matching, the median warm ischemic time in the RAPN group was significantly shorter than that in the LPN group (21.5 minutes vs 28 minutes, p = 0.034), as well as the median time of postoperative mobilization (1 day vs 2 days, p < 0.001). The other indicators were not significantly different between the groups. Conclusions: For central AMLs, both RAPN and LPN were safe and feasible surgical treatments, but RAPN might be associated with shorter warm ischemia time and earlier postoperative mobilization.

Perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of robotic vs. laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors (RENAL score ≥7): an evidence-based analysis

Objective

To evaluate the current literature comparing outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) treating complex renal tumors (RENAL nephrometry score ≥7).

Methods

We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and Scopus databases up to March 2023. Review Manager 5.4 performed a pooled analysis of the data for random effects. Besides, sensitivity and subgroup analyses to explore heterogeneity, Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and GRADE to evaluate study quality and level of evidence.

Results

Eight observational studies comprising 1346 patients (RPN: 695; LPN: 651) were included in this study. Compared to LPN, RPN had a shorter operative time (OT) (weight mean difference [WMD]: -14.73 min; p = 0.0003), shorter warm ischemia time (WIT) (WMD: -3.47 min; p = 0.002), lower transfusion rate (odds ratio [OR]: 0.66; p = 0.04), shorter length of stay (LOS) (WMD: -0.65 days; p < 0.00001), lower postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) change (WMD = -2.33 mL/min/1.73 m2; p = 0.002) and lower intraoperative complications (OR: 0.52; p = 0.04). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of estimated blood loss (EBL) (p = 0.84), conversion to radical nephrectomy (p = 0.12), postoperative complications (p = 0.11), major complications (defined Clavien-Dindo grade 3 (p = 0.43), overall complications (p = 0.15), postoperative eGFR (p = 0.28), local recurrence (p = 0.35), positive surgical margin (PSM) (p = 0.63), overall survival (OS) (p = 0.47), cancer-specific survival (CSS) (p = 0.22) and 3-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) (p = 0.53).

Conclusion

Patients with complex renal tumors (RENAL score ≥7), RPN is superior to LPN in decreasing the OT, WIT, LOS, transfusion rate, change in eGFR and the incidence of intraoperative complications while maintaining oncological control and avoiding a decline in renal function. However, our findings need further validation in a large-sample prospective randomized study.

Comparison of perioperative outcomes of robotic vs. laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors with a RENAL nephrometry score ≥7: A meta-analysis

Introduction

To compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) vs. laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) for complex renal tumors with a RENAL nephrometry score ≥7.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register for studies from 2000 to 2020 to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of RPN and LPN in patients with a RENAL nephrometry score ≥7. We used RevMan 5.2 to pool the data.

Results

Seven studies were acquired in our study. No significant differences were found in the estimated blood loss (WMD: 34.49; 95% CI: −75.16–144.14; p = 0.54), hospital stay (WMD: −0.59; 95% CI: −1.24–0.06; p = 0.07), positive surgical margin (OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.65–1.11; p = 0.23), major postoperative complications (OR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.52–1.54; p = 0.69) and transfusion (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.48–1.08; p = 0.11) between the groups. RPN showed better outcomes in the operating time (WMD: −22.45; 95% CI: −35.06 to −9.85; p = 0.0005), postoperative renal function (WMD: 3.32; 95% CI: 0.73–5.91; p = 0.01), warm ischemia time (WMD: −6.96; 95% CI: −7.30–−6.62; p &lt; 0.0001), conversion rate to radical nephrectomy (OR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.66; p = 0.002) and intraoperative complications (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.28–0.97; p = 0.04).

Discussion

RPN is a safe and effective alternative to LPNs for or the treatment of complex renal tumors with a RENAL nephrometry score ≥7 with a shorter warm ischemic time and better postoperative renal function.

Robotic-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: Techniques to Improve Clinical Outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize current options available for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy RECENT FINDINGS: Partial nephrectomy (PN) is a standard treatment option for management of cT1 renal masses. It may be carried out by multiple approaches. Robot-assisted (RA) PN is one such option. The goal of treatment is both correct oncological (negative surgical margins) and functional (preservation of sufficient amount of renal parenchyma of the operated kidney) outcome. Appropriate outcomes depend on multiple factors. There are many, but among others tumor characteristics (size, location, i.e., tumor complexity), patient baseline renal function, patient comorbidities, and performance status etc. Based on all these, the surgeon adapts the intervention for each mass/patient by preoperative planning, absence/use/duration of warm or cold ischemia, perioperative imaging, resection technique adapted to tumor location and depth of invasion, use of hemostatics, type and degree of renal parenchymal closure and others details. Nephroprotective agents have not shown efficacy so far. It should not be forgotten that surgeon's experience plays a key role in the achievement of good results. Although multiple factors have a role in the RA partial nephrectomy, surgeon experience and adaptation of technique of intervention have the crucial role in the achievement of both functional and oncological results.

Comparison of outcomes between laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors: RENAL score ≥7 or maximum tumor size >4 cm

INTRODUCTION

We reviewed current studies and performed a meta-analysis to compare outcomes between laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) treating complex renal tumors (RENAL score ≥7 or maximum clinical tumor size >4 cm).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Using the databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, a comprehensive literature search was performed in April, 2020. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect model. Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plots.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Ten observational studies including 5193 patients (LPN: 1574; RAPN: 3619) were included. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding conversion to open (P=0.07) surgery, all complications (P=0.12), grade 1-2 complications (P=0.10), grade 3-5 complications (P=0.93), operative time (P=0.94), estimated blood loss (P=0.17). Patients undergoing LPN had a significant higher rate of conversion to radical (OR=4.33; 95% CI: 2.01-9.33; P<0.001), a longer ischemia time (IT, P<0.001; WMD=3.02 min; 95% CI: 1.67 to 4.36), a longer length of stay (LOS, P<0.001; WMD=0.67 days; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.99), a lower rate of positive surgical margin (P=0.03; OR=0.71; 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.96), a greater eGFR decline (P<0.001; WMD=2.41 mL/min/1.73 m²; 95% CI: 1.22 to 3.60), a higher rate of CKD upstaging (P<0.001; OR=2.44; 95% CI: 1.54 to 3.87). No obvious publication bias was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

For complex renal tumors, RAPN is more favorable than LPN in terms of lower rate of conversion to radical surgery, shorter IT, shorter LOS, less eGFR decline, and lower rate of CKD upstaging. Methodological limitations of observational studies should be taken into account in interpreting these results.