Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for ≥ 7 cm renal masses: a comparative outcome analysis

Partial nephrectomy in solitary kidneys: comparison between open surgery and robotic-assisted laparoscopy on perioperative and functional outcomes (UroCCR-54 study)

PURPOSE

The management of solitary kidney tumors is a surgical challenge, requiring irreproachable results on both oncological and functional outcomes. The goal of our study was to compare the perioperative results of robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) to open surgery in this indication.

METHODS

We led a multicentric study based on the prospectively maintained French national database UroCCR. Patients who underwent partial nephrectomy on a solitary kidney between 1988 and 2020 were included. Clinical and pathological data were retrospectively analyzed. The main outcome of the study was the analysis of the variation of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) calculated according to MDRD at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months depending on the chosen surgical approach. The secondary outcomes were the comparison of Trifecta success, perioperative complications, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

In total, 150 patients were included; 68 (45%) in the RAPN group and 82 (55%) in the open surgery group. The two groups were comparable for all data. The variation of eGFR at 3, 6, 12, or 24 months was comparable without any significant difference between the 2 groups (p = 0.45). Trifecta was achieved in 40% of the patients in the RAPN group and 33% in the open group (p = 0.42). A significant difference was observed for the length of stay, 5 days for the robot group versus 9 days for the open surgery group (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

In our study, the surgical approach did not modify functional results and we noted a significant decrease in hospital stay and complications in the RAPN group. RAPN is a safe and efficient method for management of kidney tumors in solitary kidneys.

On-Clamp vs. Off-Clamp Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy for cT2 Renal Tumors: Retrospective Propensity-Score-Matched Multicenter Outcome Analysis

We compared perioperative outcomes after on-clamp versus off-clamp robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for >7 cm renal masses. A multicenter dataset was queried for patients who had undergone RAPN for a cT2cN0cM0 kidney tumor from July 2007 to February 2022. The Trifecta achievement (negative surgical margins, no severe complications, and ≤ 30% postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) reduction) was considered a surrogate of surgical quality. Overall, 316 cases were included in the analysis, and 58% achieved the Trifecta. A propensity-score-matched analysis generated two cohorts of 89 patients homogeneous for age, ASA score, preoperative eGFR, and RENAL score (all p > 0.21). Compared to the on-clamp approach, OT was significantly shorter in the off-clamp group (80 vs. 190 min; p < 0.001), the incidence of sRFD was lower (22% vs. 40%; p = 0.01), and the Trifecta rate higher (66% vs. 46%; p = 0.01). In a crude analysis, >20 min of hilar clamping was associated with a significantly higher risk of sRFD (OR: 2.30; 95%CI: 1.13−4.64; p = 0.02) and with reduced probabilities of achieving the Trifecta (OR: 0.46; 95%CI: 0.27−0.79; p = 0.004). Purely off-clamp RAPN seems to be a safe and viable option to treat cT2 renal masses and may outperform the on-clamp approach regarding perioperative surgical outcomes.

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.

A meta-analysis for comparison of partial nephrectomy vs. radical nephrectomy in patients with pT3a renal cell carcinoma

Background

Kidney cancer is the most common malignant tumor of the kidney in adults. However, in terms of the treatment for pT3a renal cell carcinoma (RCC), whether partial nephrectomy (PN) can be selected is still controversial. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of PN and radical nephrectomy (RN) in treatment for patients with pT3a RCC.

Methods

The relative English databases including PubMed and EMBASE were searched for studies comparing PN and RN for pT3a RCC between 2010 and 2020. Stata 13.0 software was used to compare the cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), cancer-specific mortality (CSM), relapse-free survival (RFS), complications and positive surgical margin.

Results

Nine articles were included with a total of 3,391 patients, of whom 2,113 received RN and 1,278 received PN. The results showed that there is no statistical difference in CSS, OS, CSM, RFS, complications and positive surgical margin between RN and PN. No heterogeneity was shown in study.

Conclusions

There were no differences in the CSS, OS, CSM, RFS, complications and positive surgical margin of the patients in RN and PN group. For pT3a RCC, RN did not provide a better survival benefit compared to PN. Considering PN can suppress the progression of tumor and reduce the risk of postoperative chronic renal insufficiency, we found PN is a good choice for pT3a RCC. However, further large-sample, studies are still needed in future.

Analyzing National Incidences and Predictors of Open Conversion During Minimally Invasive Partial Nephrectomy for cT1 Renal Masses

Objectives: To analyze predictors of open conversion during minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) for cT1 renal masses. Methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was investigated for kidney cancer patients who underwent partial nephrectomy (PN) between 2010 and 2015. Patients who underwent MIPN were stratified into converted and nonconverted groups. Sociodemographics, facility characteristics, and surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups, and multivariate logistic regression model was fitted to identify independent predictors of open conversion. Results: In total, 54,246 patients underwent PN for kidney cancer during the 6-year period. Of those, 18,994 (35%) were open partial nephrectomies (OPNs) and 35,252 (64%) were MIPN. Overall, 1010 (2.87%) of MIPNs were converted to OPN. There was an increasing utilization of MIPN from 50.35% in 2010 to 74.73% in 2015. Patients who had open conversion had more 30-day readmissions (5.95% vs 3.31%, p < 0.01). On multivariate analysis; high-volume facility (>30 MIPNs/year), year of surgery (2015 vs 2010), and robotic approach predicted a lower likelihood of conversion (odds ratio [OR] 0.52, confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.62; OR 0.59, CI 0.47-0.73; and OR 0.31, CI 0.27-0.35; respectively, p < 0.001 for all). Conversely, Medicaid (vs private insurance; OR 1.75, CI 1.39-2.19, p < 0.001) and male sex (OR 1.26, CI 1.11-1.44, p < 0.001) were independent predictors of conversion. Conclusions: Open conversion in MIPN occurred in 2.87% of cases. There was an increasing utilization of MIPN associated with decreased conversion rates. Higher volume hospitals and progressing year of surgery were associated with less likelihood of conversion.

Robotic partial nephrectomy for clinical T2a renal mass is associated with improved trifecta outcome compared to open partial nephrectomy: a single surgeon comparative analysis

OBJECTIVE

Utilization of partial nephrectomy (PN) for T2 renal mass is controversial due to concerns regarding burden of morbidity, though most cited data are from open PN (OPN). We compared surgical quality and functional outcomes of RPN and OPN for clinical T2a renal masses (cT2aRM).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 150 consecutive patients [RPN 59/OPN 91] who underwent PN from July 2008 to June 2016. Main outcome was achievement of Trifecta [negative surgical margin, no major urologic complications, and ≥90% preservation of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)]. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors of Trifecta attainment.

RESULTS

Mean tumor size (RPN 7.9 vs. OPN 8.4 cm, p = 0.139) and median RENAL score (p = 0.361) were similar. No difference was noted for positive margins (RPN 3.4% vs. OPN 1.1%, p = 0.561), ΔeGFR (RPN - 6.2 vs. OPN - 7.8, p = 0.543), and ≥ 90% eGFR recovery (RPN 54.1% vs. OPN 47.2%, p = 0.504). RPN had lower blood loss (p = 0.015), hospital stay (p = 0.013), and Clavien ≥ 3 complications (RPN 5.1% vs. OPN 16.5%, p = 0.041). Trifecta rate was significantly higher in RPN (47.5% vs. 34.0%, p = 0.041). Multivariable analysis demonstrated decreasing RENAL score (OR 1.11, p < 0.001), RPN (OR 1.2, p = 0.013), and decreasing EBL (OR 1.02, p = 0.016) to be associated with Trifecta attainment.

CONCLUSIONS

RPN provided similar functional and oncologic precision to OPN, while being associated with improvements in major complications, the latter of which was reflected in a higher rate of Trifecta achievement for RPN. RPN may be considered to be a first-line option for select patients with cT2aRM when feasible and safe.

Comparison of robotic and open partial nephrectomy for highly complex renal tumors (RENAL nephrometry score ≥10)

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) with those of open PN (OPN) in patients with highly complex renal tumors defined as RENAL nephrometry score ≥ 10.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed clinical data from a total of 149 patients who underwent OPN or RPN for a highly complex renal mass at our institution between 2003 and 2017. Perioperative data, complication profiles, functional outcomes, pathologic variables, and oncologic outcomes were evaluated in both groups.

RESULTS

The median (interquartile range, IQR) patient age was 52.0 (42.0-59.0) years, and the median (IQR) follow-up period was 30.0 (7.0-54.0) months. Among the patients, 64 (43.0%) and 85 (57.0%) underwent OPN and RPN, respectively. The RPN group showed higher rates of clinical T1b and ≥ T2 than the OPN group (p = 0.019). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of intraoperative outcomes such as operation time, estimated blood loss, warm ischemic time, and transfusion. Notably, the RPN group showed significantly shorter length of hospital stay than the OPN group (p < 0.001). Regarding the complication profiles and renal functional outcomes, no significant differences were reported between the groups. The estimated glomerular filtration rate decline from baseline at the last follow-up showed no significant differences between the two groups (p = 0.351). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis also showed no significant differences in survival outcomes between the groups (log-rank test, all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

RPN performed in patients with highly complex renal tumors offers perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes comparable to those associated with OPN.

Determinant factors for chronic kidney disease after partial nephrectomy

The objective of this review is to evaluate the factors that determine the development or deterioration of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) after partial nephrectomy (PN).

When current literature is reviewed, it is found that factors that influence renal function after partial nephrectomy, are multifactorial. Those are divided into pre-surgical factors, such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, urolithiasis, obesity, metabolic syndrome among others; intra-surgical factors, like the surgical technique used, the remaining healthy tissue, the experience of the surgeon, the time and type of ischemia among others. Lastly, post-surgical factors, also impose some influence on the post-surgical renal performance.

It was also found that minimally invasive surgery, in addition to its known advantages, seems to offer a greater field of action in the future that will allow more nephrons preservation in any future surgical scenario.

Finally, the current trend is to perform PN on all patients, in whom surgery is technically feasible regardless of the approach used, without risking oncological outcomes, patient safety, and without being exposed to any additional complications.

Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for tumors 7cm and above. Perioperative outcomes

PURPOSE

To assess and report the outcomes of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy )LPN) for T2 renal masses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of patients undergoing LPN for clinically localized renal masses ≥7cm between the years 2005-2016. Descriptive analyses were generated for demographics, lesion characteristics, perioperative variables (operative time, warm ischemia time (WIT), estimated blood loss (EBL), intra-operative and post-operative complications (IOC and POC) and pathologic variables (pathology, subtype and Fuhrman grade).

RESULTS

A total of 27 patients underwent LPN for a T2 renal mass at our institution between 2005 and early 2016 of which 19 were males. The mean age was 66 (52-72). All procedures were transperitoneal with 16 on the right and 11 on the left. Median operative time was 200 minutes (IQR 181-236) and median WIT 19 minutes (IQR 16-23). EBL was 125mL (IQR 75-175). One case was converted to laparoscopic radical nephrectomy due to suspected tumor thrombus in the renal vein. Surgical margins were positive in one renal tumor in a patient with multiple tumors. There was a total of 2 IOC (7.4%) and 3 POC (11%) classified as Clavien grade 3.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this series is the first to describe the outcomes of LPN for cT2 renal masses. In our series, LPN for larger renal masses appears feasible with favorable perioperative outcomes. Additional data are needed to further explore the benefits of minimally invasive surgical approaches to larger renal masses.

When Partial Nephrectomy is Unsuccessful: Understanding the Reasons for Conversion from Robotic Partial to Radical Nephrectomy at a Tertiary Referral Center

PURPOSE

We sought to identify the preoperative factors associated with conversion from robotic partial nephrectomy to radical nephrectomy. We report the incidence of this event.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using our institutional review board approved database, we abstracted data on 1,023 robotic partial nephrectomies performed at our center between 2010 and 2015. Standard and converted cases were compared in terms of patients and tumor characteristics, and perioperative, functional and oncologic outcomes. Logistic regression analysis was done to identify predictors of radical conversion.

RESULTS

The overall conversion rate was 3.1% (32 of 1,023 cases). The most common reasons for conversion were tumor involvement of hilar structures (8 cases or 25%), failure to achieve negative margins on frozen section (7 or 21.8%), suspicion of advanced disease (5 or 15.6%) and failure to progress (5 or 15.6%). Patients requiring conversion were older and had a higher Charlson score (both p <0.01), including an increased prevalence of chronic kidney disease (p = 0.02). Increasing tumor size (5 vs 3.1 cm, p <0.01) and R.E.N.A.L. (radius, exophytic/endophytic properties, nearness of tumor to collecting system or sinus, anterior/posterior, location relative to polar lines and hilar location) score (9 vs 8, p <0.01) were also associated with an increased risk of conversion. Worse baseline renal function (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-0.99, p = 0.04), large tumor size (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.22-1.7, p <0.01) and increasing R.E.N.A.L. score (p = 0.02) were independent predictors of conversion. Compared to converted cases, at latest followup standard robotic partial nephrectomy cases had similar short-term oncologic outcomes but better renal functional preservation (p <0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

At a high volume center the rate of robotic partial nephrectomy conversion to radical nephrectomy was 3.1%, including 2.2% of preoperatively anticipated nephrectomy cases. Increasing tumor size and complexity, and poor preoperative renal function are the main predictors of conversion.

Is Robotic Partial Nephrectomy Safe for T3a Renal Cell Carcinoma? Experience of a High-Volume Center

PURPOSE

To compare the oncological and functional outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) with radical nephrectomy (RN) in renal-cell carcinoma (RCC) cases with pT3a staging.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of our IRB-approved nephrectomy database from 2005 to 2015 was performed. RPN and RN cases with confirmed RCC and pT3a staging were matched. Preoperative variables, functional, and oncological outcomes were compared between the groups, as well as Kaplan-Meier estimated overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS). A multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model for overall mortality rate was generated to evaluate hazard ratios (HRs) of potential risk factors.

RESULTS

Seventy patients with pT3a tumors composed each group. Preoperative variables were comparable between groups. The median follow-up time for the cohort was 20 (9-38) months and the renal function preservation was higher in the RPN group (86% vs 70%; p < 0.001). The estimated 3 years of OS (90% vs 84%; p = 0.42), CSS (94% vs 95%; p = 0.78), and RFS (95% vs. 100%; p = 0.06) were similar between RPN and RN groups, respectively. On multivariable Cox regression model, the presence of ≥2 aggressive tumor features was the only factor associated with increased risk of overall mortality rate (HR 4.01 95% confidence interval [1.13, 14.27)]; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Patients with localized pT3a RCC treated with RPN had similar short-term oncological and better renal functional outcomes compared with similar cases treated by RN. In the minimally invasive robotic surgery era, renal masses suspicious for pathological T3a disease should not be a deterring factor for performing nephron-sparing surgery when technically feasible by skilled surgeons.

Is robotic partial nephrectomy convenient for solitary kidney?

Nephron sparing surgery (NSS) is the gold standard treatment option for patients with a solitary kidney in order to preserve renal function. Open partial nephrectomy (OPN) has been long considered the standard care for NSS. Robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) is being gradually used more commonly even for solitary kidney and complex tumors. There was no difference between RPN and OPN regarding the rate of intraoperative-postoperative complications and positive surgical margin (PSM) (RPN: 7.5%, OPN: 8%) for patients with solitary kidney who underwent partial nephrectomy for small renal masses. Warm ischemia time (WIT) in all of our studies was within the safe range of <25 minutes which is acceptable ischemia time for robotic approaches. More studies are needed in order to evaluate kidney function. In conclusion with increasing experience, solitary kidney tumors can be managed safely with robotic approach. For patients having complex tumors with a potential of WIT >25 minutes, administration of intracorporeal ice slush during surgery may be considered.

Partial Nephrectomy Versus Radical Nephrectomy for Clinical T1b and T2 Renal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies

BACKGROUND

Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the reference standard of management for a cT1a renal mass. However, its role in the management of larger tumors (cT1b and cT2) is still under scrutiny.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a meta-analysis assessing functional, oncologic, and perioperative outcomes of PN and radical nephrectomy (RN) in the specific case of larger renal tumors (≥cT1b). The primary endpoint was an overall analysis of cT1b and cT2 masses. The secondary endpoint was a sensitivity analysis for cT2 only.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic literature review was performed up to December 2015 using multiple search engines to identify eligible comparative studies. A formal meta-analysis was performed for studies comparing PN to RN for both cT1b and cT2 tumors. In addition, a sensitivity analysis including the subgroup of studies comparing PN to RN for cT2 only was conducted. Pooled estimates were calculated using a fixed-effects model if no significant heterogeneity was identified; alternatively, a random-effects model was used when significant heterogeneity was detected. For continuous outcomes, the weighted mean difference (WMD) was used as summary measure. For binary variables, the odds ratio (OR) or risk ratio (RR) was calculated with 95% confidence interval (CI). Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 21 case-control studies including 11204 patients (RN 8620; PN 2584) were deemed eligible and included in the analysis. Patients undergoing PN were younger (WMD -2.3 yr; p<0.001) and had smaller masses (WMD -0.65cm; p<0.001). Lower estimated blood loss was found for RN (WMD 102.6ml; p<0.001). There was a higher likelihood of postoperative complications for PN (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.34-2.2; p<0.001). Pathology revealed a higher rate of malignant histology for the RN group (RR 0.97; p=0.02). PN was associated with better postoperative renal function, as shown by higher postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; WMD 12.4ml/min; p<0.001), lower likelihood of postoperative onset of chronic kidney disease (RR 0.36; p<0.001), and lower decline in eGFR (WMD -8.6ml/min; p<0.001). The PN group had a lower likelihood of tumor recurrence (OR 0.6; p<0.001), cancer-specific mortality (OR 0.58; p=0.001), and all-cause mortality (OR 0.67; p=0.005). Four studies compared PN (n=212) to RN (n=1792) in the specific case of T2 tumors (>7cm). In this subset of patients, the estimated blood loss was higher for PN (WMD 107.6ml; p<0.001), as was the likelihood of complications (RR 2.0; p<0.001). Both the recurrence rate (RR 0.61; p=0.004) and cancer-specific mortality (RR 0.65; p=0.03) were lower for PN.

CONCLUSIONS

PN is a viable treatment option for larger renal tumors, as it offers acceptable surgical morbidity, equivalent cancer control, and better preservation of renal function, with potential for better long-term survival. For T2 tumors, PN use should be more selective, and specific patient and tumor factors should be considered. Further investigation, ideally in a prospective randomized fashion, is warranted to better define the role of PN in this challenging clinical scenario.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We performed a cumulative analysis of the literature to determine the best treatment option in cases of localized kidney tumor of higher clinical stage (T1b and T2, as based on preoperative imaging). Our findings suggest that removing only the tumor and saving the kidney might be an effective treatment modality in terms of cancer control, with the advantage of preserving the kidney function. However, a higher risk of perioperative complications should be taken into account when facing larger tumors (clinical stage T2) with kidney-sparing surgery.

Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy without using ureteral stent: a single center experience

OBJECTIVE

To share our results of robotic assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) we performed without using ureteral stent in a single center from Turkey.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Medical records of consecutive 45 patients (34 men and 11 women) who underwent RAPN for kidney lesions between March 2011 and December 2014 were retrieved, and evaluated. All the procedures were performed by a transperitoneal approach without using ureteral stent prior to surgery. Renal artery clamping was used in all cases and intraoperative ultrasonography was used in 2 cases.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing RAPN had a mean tumor size of 4.42 cm (2-8) and a mean renal nephrometry score of 5.82 (4-11). The mean estimated blood loss was 250 mL (150-450 ml) and the mean operative time was 195 minutes (150-300). There was no statistical difference between the preoperative and postoperative serum creatinine levels at the first follow-up visit (0.9 vs. 0.95, p=0.087). Surgical margin positivity was not detected in any patient, and the mean surgical margin distance was calculated as 0.4 mm (0.2-10). In only 1 patient disease recurrence was detected at the 21(st) month of the the follow-up period, and no distant metastases was reported in our patients at a mean follow-up of 10 months (3-36 mos). Our complication rate was 11.1% and according to the Clavien system complications were as; grade 2 (3 patients), grade 3a (1 patient) and grade 3b (1 patient).

CONCLUSION

With appropriately selected patients and adequate surgical experience, RAPN performed without using ureteral stent is a safe and feasible method for localized renal tumors.