Comparing costs of robotic, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy

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.

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.

The IRON Study: Investigation of Robot-assisted Versus Open Nephron-sparing Surgery

Background

Current literature does not provide large-scale data regarding clinical outcomes of robot-assisted (RAPN) versus open (OPN) partial nephrectomy. Moreover, data assessing predictors of long-term oncologic outcomes after RAPN are scarce.

Objective

To compare perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes of RAPN versus OPN, and to investigate the predictors of oncologic outcomes after RAPN.

Design setting and participants

This study included 3467 patients treated with OPN (n = 1063) or RAPN (n = 2404) for a single cT_1-2N₀M₀ renal mass from 2004 to 2018 at nine high-volume European, North American, and Asian institutions.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

The study outcomes were short-term postoperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes. Regression models investigated the effect of surgical approach (open vs Robot assisted) on study outcomes, and interaction tests were used for subgroup analyses. Propensity score matching for demographic and tumor characteristics was used in sensitivity analyses. Multivariable Cox-regression analyses identified predictors of oncologic outcomes after RAPN.

Results and limitations

Baseline characteristics were similar between patients receiving RAPN and OPN, with only few differences. After adjusting for confounding, RAPN was associated with lower odds of intraoperative (odds ratio [OR]: 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22, 0.68) and Clavien-Dindo ≥2 postoperative (OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.16, 0.50) complications (both p < 0.05). This association was not affected by comorbidities, tumor dimension, PADUA score, or preoperative renal function (all p > 0.05 on interaction tests). On multivariable analyses, we found no differences between the two techniques with respect to functional and oncologic outcomes (all p > 0.05). Overall, there were 63 and 92 local recurrences and systemic progressions, respectively, with a median follow-up after surgery of 32 mo (interquartile range: 18, 60). Among patients receiving RAPN, we assessed predictors of local recurrence and systemic progression with discrimination accuracy (ie, C-index) that ranged from 0.73 to 0.81.

Conclusions

While cancer control and long-term renal function did not differ between RAPN and OPN, we found that the intra- and postoperative morbidity-especially in terms of complications-was lower after RAPN than after OPN. Our predictive models allow surgeons to estimate the risk of adverse oncologic outcomes after RAPN, with relevant implications for preoperative counseling and follow-up after surgery.

Patient summary

In this comparative study on robotic versus open partial nephrectomy, functional and oncologic outcomes were similar between the two techniques, with lower morbidity-especially in terms of complications-for robot-assisted surgery. The assessment of prognosticators for patients receiving robot-assisted partial nephrectomy may help in preoperative counseling and provides relevant data to tailor postoperative follow-up.

Same-day discharge following minimally invasive partial and radical nephrectomy: a National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) analysis

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) and radical nephrectomy (MIRN) have successfully resulted in shorter length of stay (LOS) for patients. Using a national cohort, we compared 30-day outcomes of SDD (LOS = 0) versus standard-length discharge (SLD, LOS = 1-3) for MIRN and MIPN.

METHODS

All patients who underwent MIPN (CPT 50,543) or MIRN (CPT 50,545) in the ACS-NSQIP database from 2012 to 2019 were reviewed. SDD and SLD groups were matched 1:1 by age, sex, race, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and medical comorbidities. We compared baseline characteristics, 30-day Clavien-Dindo (CD) complications, reoperations, and readmissions between SDD and SLD groups. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to evaluate predictors of adverse outcomes.

RESULTS

28,140 minimally invasive nephrectomy patients were included (SDD n = 237 [0.8%], SLD n = 27,903 [99.2%]). There were no significant differences in 30-day readmissions, CD I/II, CDIII, or CD IV complications before and after matching SDD and SLD groups. On multivariate regression analysis, SDD did not confer increased risk of 30-day complications or readmissions for both MIPN and MIRN.

CONCLUSION

SDD after MIPN and MIRN did not confer increased risk of postoperative complications, reoperation, or readmission compared to SLD. Further research should explore optimal patient selection to ensure safe expansion of this initiative.

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.

Analysis of surgical and histopathological results of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy with use of three or four robotic arms: an early series results

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether criteria exist to guide election between the use the three- or four-arm technique in robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) instead of just the surgeon’s preference.

Material and Methods:

We performed a retrospective review of 80 patients submitted to RPN from May 2016 to February 2020. The patients were divided into two groups of 40, the first submitted to the surgical procedure with use of three robotic arms and the second with four arms. The group division was performed independently of the complexity of the cases, age or gender of the patients and laterality of the renal lesions. Peri- and postoperative data were analyzed for comparison between the two groups.

Results:

Both techniques had similar oncological outcomes (positive tumor margins), renal function preservation (warm ischemia time) and hemorrhagic complications (estimated blood loss and renal artery pseudoaneurysm), with a small difference in the need for blood transfusion, favoring the technique with three arms.

Conclusions:

The two robotic partial nephrectomy techniques had similar oncological and postoperative outcomes, with minimal perioperative complications. The three-arm technique is safe and feasible regardless of the complexity and size of the tumor. Additionally, the use of the three-arm technique reduced surgery costs by US$ 413.00 per patient.

Multi-Spectrum Robotic Cardiac Surgery: Early Outcomes

Objective

The robotic cardiac surgery program at our current institution began in 2013 with an experienced and dedicated team. This review analyzes early outcomes in the first 1103 patients.

Methods

We reviewed all robotic procedures between July 2013 and February 2021. Primary outcomes were mortality and perioperative morbidity. Our robotic approach is totally endoscopic for all cases: off-pump for coronary and epicardial procedures, and on-pump with the endoballoon for mitral valve and other intracardiac procedures.

Results

There were 1103 robotic-assisted cardiac surgeries over 7 years. A total of 585 (53%) were off-pump totally endoscopic coronary artery bypasses, 399 (36%) intracardiac cases (including isolated and concomitant mitral valve procedures, isolated tricuspid valve repair, CryoMaze, atrial or ventricular septal defect repair, benign cardiac tumor, septal myectomy, partial anomalous pulmonary venous drainage, and aortic valve replacement); 80 (7%) epicardial electrophysiology-related procedures (epicardial atrial fibrillation ablation, left atrial appendage ligation, lead placement, and ventricular tachycardia ablation); and 39 (4%) other epicardial procedures (pericardiectomy, unroofing myocardial bridge). Mortality was 1.2% (observed/expected ratio, 0.7). In the totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass and intracardiac groups, mortality was 1.0% (observed/expected, 0.6) and 1.5% (observed/expected, 0.87), respectively. There were 8 conversions to sternotomy (0.7%) and 24 (2.2%) take-backs for bleeding. Mean hospital and intensive care unit lengths of stay were 2.74 ± 1.26 days and 1.28 ± 0.57 days, respectively.

Conclusions

This experience demonstrates that a robotic endoscopic approach can safely be used in a multitude of cardiac surgical procedures both on- and off-pump with excellent early outcomes. An experienced surgeon and team are necessary. Longer-term follow-up is warranted.

Laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy in resource-constrained developing world hospitals: a retrospective analysis

Background

Laparoscopic nephrectomy is the standard of care for nephrectomy in most developed countries. Its adoption in our setting has been limited due to lack of equipment and expertise. This paper sets out to show that laparoscopic nephrectomy is technically feasible in the state sector in South Africa.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed of all patients having undergone nephrectomy over a five-year period at two state hospitals in KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa. Demographic information, pre-operative imaging findings, operative information and post-operative outcomes were analysed.

Results

Nephrectomy was performed in 196 patients. Open nephrectomy (ON) was the intended surgical approach in 73% (n = 143) and laparoscopic nephrectomy (LN) in 27% (n = 53). The conversion rate from LN to ON was 11% (n = 6). For malignancies, there was no difference in surgical resection margin status across the ON, LN and conversion groups; however, tumour size was larger in the conversion group compared to the LN group. Estimated blood loss and transfusion rates were lower in the LN group. The average length of hospital stay was shorter in the LN group (5 vs 10 days). High dependency unit (HDU) admission rate was lower in the LN group (12.1%) compared to the ON group (50%) and the conversion group (40%). No difference in high-grade complications was noted between the ON and LN groups, and more patients in the LN group (82.5%) had no complications compared to the open group (9.9%).

Conclusion

LN is non-inferior to ON in terms of operative time, oncology outcomes and high-grade complications. LN is superior in terms of blood loss, transfusion rate, length of hospital stay and overall complication rate. LN appears to show technical feasibility in the state sector and highlights the need for laparoscopic training.

Population-based analysis of cost and peri-operative outcomes between open and robotic primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for germ cell tumors

PURPOSE

To compare perioperative outcomes and perform the first cost analysis between open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (O-RPLND) and Robotic-RPLND (R-RPLND) using a national all-payer inpatient care database.

METHODS

Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) was queried between 2013-2016 for primary RPLND and germ cell tumor. We compared cost, length of stay (LOS), and complications between O-RPLND and R-RPLND. Linear regression plots identified point of cost equivalence between R-RPLND and O-RPLND. A multivariable linear regression model was generated to analyze predictors of cost.

RESULTS

44 cases of R-RPLND and 319 cases of O-RPLND were identified. R-RPLND was associated with lower rate of complications (0% vs. 16.6%, p < 0.01) and shorter LOS [Median (IQR): 1.5 (1-3) days vs. 4 (3-6) days, p < 0.01]. Rates of ileus, genitourinary complications, and transfusions were lower with R-RPLND, but did not reach significance. On multivariable analysis, robotic approach independently contributed $4457, while each day of hospitalization contributed to an additional $2,431 to the overall model of cost. Linear regression plots determined point of cost equivalence between an R-RPLND staying a mean of 2 days was 4-5 days for O-RPLND, supporting the multivariable analysis. Total hospitalization cost was equivalent between R-RPLND and O-RPLND [Median (IQR): $15,681($12,735-$21,596) vs $16,718($11,799-$24,403), p = 0.48]-suggesting that the cost equivalency of R-RPLND is, at least in part, attributable to shorter LOS.

CONCLUSION

While O-RPLND remains the gold standard and this study is limited by selection bias of a robotic approach to RPLND, our findings suggest primary R-RPLND may represent a cost-equivalent option with decreased hospital LOS in select cases.

Perioperative Outcomes of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: A Prospective Multicenter Observational Study (The RECORd 2 Project)

BACKGROUND

Partial nephrectomy (PN) has a non-negligible perioperative morbidity. Comparative evidence of the available surgical techniques is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the perioperative outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic PN.

METHODS

Data of 2331 patients treated with PN for cT1 renal tumors were extracted from the RECORd2 database, a prospective multicenter project. Multivariable regression models assessed the relationship between surgical technique and surgical margins, warm ischemia time, postoperative complications, and acute kidney injury (AKI). The probability of achieving a modified trifecta (negative margins, warm ischemia time <25min, and no Clavien-Dindo ≥2 complications) was examined for each surgical approach.

RESULTS

Minimally invasive techniques had lower rate of Clavien-Dindo ≥2 complications than that of open surgery (odds ratio [OR] for robotic surgery: 0.27; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.15-0.47, p< 0.0001; OR for laparoscopy: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.34-0.78; p= 0.002). The probability of receiving ischemia was highest for robotic PN (p< 0.001). Among on-clamp PN, laparoscopy had longer ischemia than open (estimate: 1.09; 95% CI: -0.00 to 2.18; p= 0.050) and robotic (estimate: 1.36; 95% CI: 0.31-2.40; p= 0.011) surgery. When compared with open PN, the risk of AKI was roughly halved for patients treated by robotic and laparoscopic surgery (both p< 0.0001). Positive margins rate did not differ between the groups (all p≥ 0.1). The likelihood to achieve a modified trifecta was not affected by surgical technique in the overall population (all p≥ 0.075). In Preoperative Aspects and Dimensions Used for an Anatomical (PADUA) score < 10 lesions, robotic surgery had higher probability of achieving a modified trifecta than open PN (OR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.09-2.53; p= 0.018) and laparoscopy (OR: 1.34; 95% CI: 0.94-1.90; p= 0.11).

CONCLUSIONS

In PADUA<10 renal tumors, robotic PN allows for higher rates of trifecta than open and laparoscopic surgeries. The impact of surgical technique on perioperative outcomes of PN might be limited in more complex lesions.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We evaluated the association between surgical technique and perioperative outcomes of partial nephrectomy. In less complex (Preoperative Aspects and Dimensions Used for an Anatomical [PADUA] score < 10) lesions, robotic PN allows for higher rates of trifecta when compared with other surgical techniques.

A Single Overnight Stay After Robotic Partial Nephrectomy Does Not Increase Complications

Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility of postoperative day 1 (POD1) discharge after robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) and to determine whether a protocol targeting a shorter length of stay (LOS) is associated with any difference in the rate of postoperative complications. Materials and Methods: We reviewed a prospectively maintained, multi-institutional database of patients who underwent RPN from September 2013 to September 2016. Three of the six participating surgeons used a protocol that targeted discharge on POD1, whereas three surgeons did not. Patient characteristics and postoperative complication rates between the two groups were compared. Results: A total of 665 patients were included, 455 of whom were treated by surgeons utilizing a POD1 discharge protocol, whereas 210 were not. The mean LOS for those in the POD1 protocol group was 1.13 days vs 2.02 days in the non-protocol group. Between groups, there were no differences in age (p = 0.098), body mass index (p = 0.164), tumor size (p = 0.502), or R.E.N.A.L. Nephrometry score (p = 0.974), but POD1 discharge protocol patients had higher age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity score (4 vs 2, p = 0.033), were less likely to have a hilar tumor (15.9% vs 23.1%, p = 0.03), and had a larger percent decrease in discharge estimated glomerular filtration rate (-15.9% vs -7.1%, p < 0.001). There were no differences in the rates of overall (p = 0.715), major (p = 0.164), medical (p = 0.089), or surgical complications (p = 0.301) or in complications by the Clavien-Dindo category (p = 0.13). Conclusion: Discharge on POD1 after RPN is feasible, reproducible by different surgeons, and not associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications.

Fellowship and Subspecialization in Urology: An Analysis of Robotic-assisted Partial Nephrectomy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of a urologic fellowship on physician case-volume and immediate patient outcomes, and to assess predictors of undergoing a robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy by a fellowship-trained (FT) urologist.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all robotic (ICD-9 17.4) partial nephrectomies (PN; ICD-9 55.4) reported in the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative Systems (SPARCS) database of New York State (NYS) from 2009 to 2014. Perioperative outcomes assessed included length of stay, 30-day readmission rates, 90-day readmission rates, and complication rates. Pearson chi-square tests were used to compare categorical variables, and unpaired Student t tests were used to assess continuous variables.

RESULTS

FT urologists performed 2199 (56%) RAPN during the study period, and nonfellowship trained (NFT) urologists completed 1700 (44%) RAPN. FT urologists performed more RAPN in teaching hospitals than NFT urologists (23% vs 7%). The average surgical volume per year for a FT urologist conducting RAPN was 9.6 ± 2.2 cases/y. NFT urologists had an average surgical volume of 7.2 ± 1.5 cases/y (P = <.0001). No significant difference was found in length of stay, 30- or 90-day readmission rate, or complication rate between the groups. RAPN conducted at teaching hospitals were more likely to be conducted by FT urologists. Patients who were self-payers were less likely to have a RAPN by FT urologists.

CONCLUSION

There were no differences for RAPN perioperative outcomes between FT urologists and their NFT peers. FT urologists perform a higher case-volume of RAPN in NYS, and this trend is increasing.

3D Endoscopic Donor Nephrectomy Versus Robot-assisted Donor Nephrectomy: A Detailed Comparison of 2 Prospective Cohorts

BACKGROUND

There are 2 endoscopic surgical techniques that implement 3-dimensional (3D) vision to overcome visual misperception: 3D endoscopy and the da Vinci surgical system. 3D endoscopy has several advantages, such as the presence of tactile feedback and easy implementation, at lower costs. We aimed to assess whether 3D endoscopy could be an alternative to the robot during living donor nephrectomy.

METHODS

Between April 2015 and April 2016, we prospectively collected data on 40 patients undergoing 3D endoscopic living donor nephrectomies in 1 center, performed by a da Vinci-certified surgeon. Data on donors' perioperative results and recipient and graft survival were collected. These data were compared to 40 robot-assisted donor nephrectomies performed in the same center (between January 2012 and May 2014).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics for both groups were comparable. Intraoperative results showed a significantly shorter median skin-to-skin time of 138.5 minutes (125.8-163.8) versus 169.0 (141.5-209.8) minutes in favor of the 3D group (P = 0.001). Warm ischemia time (P = 0.003) and hilar phase for both single (1 artery and vein) and multiple anatomies (≥1 artery and/or vein [P = 0.002 and P = 0.010, respectively]) were also significantly reduced in favor of the 3D group, with a flat learning curve. Follow-up demonstrated no readmissions nor significant differences for donors, recipients, and graft survival.

CONCLUSIONS

3D endoscopy may be a good alternative to robot-assisted donor nephrectomy because morbidity, graft, and recipient survival were comparable, with a significantly shorter median skin-to-skin time, warm ischemia time, and hilar dissection phase. Furthermore, implementation was easy and at lower costs, whereas tactile feedback was preserved.

Open versus robotic partial nephrectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary studies

OBJECTIVES

To compare perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RaPN) with open partial nephrectomy (OPN).

METHODS

Systematically search through PubMed, Embase, ClinicalKey, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov for eligible studies was performed to April 11, 2018. A meta-analysis was conducted for studies comparing RaPN and OPN. Confounding variables were assessed by meta-regression or subgroup analysis.

RESULTS

This study included 34 studies with 60 808 patients. Meta-analysis revealed less blood loss, less transfusion, longer operative time, less postoperative complications, lower readmission rate, shorter length of stay, and less estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline in RaPN groups. The superiority of RaPN in blood loss was attenuated with highly complex renal masses. The superiority of RaPN in intraoperative complications was strengthened with renal hilar control. The advantage of RaPN in surgical margin was increased in patient with body mass index (BMI) < 28.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with OPN, RaPN provided lower morbidities and better renal function preservation.

Current status of robotic partial nephrectomy in Japan

The safety and efficacy of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) has been reported in Western countries. However, there are no similar reported studies of RAPN in Japan. Although common medical services are covered by public health insurance in Japan, RAPN had not been approved as a listed treatment for public insurance. We conducted a prospective clinical trial to confirm the efficacy and safety of RAPN in Japan. The aim of the present review article is to describe current status of RAPN in Japan and to introduce a part of clinical results obtained from the clinical trial. Based on the favorable results obtained in this clinical trial, RAPN was approved in April 2016 by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare to be covered by public health insurance. This change allows access to RAPN to everyone in Japan, regardless of wealth. The RAPN techniques used in Japan are also reviewed.

Adoption of Technology and Its Impact on Nephrectomy Outcomes, a U.S. Population-Based Analysis (2008-2012)

PURPOSE

Robot-assisted surgery has been touted as offering superior outcomes in various oncologic surgeries. We sought to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of robotic radical nephrectomy (RRN) compared with laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) in regard to hospital charges, complications, and survival.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program-Medicare linked database, we identified patients over the age of 65 who underwent radical nephrectomy (RN) for nonmetastatic renal-cell carcinoma from 2008 to 2012. Patients who underwent RRN were compared with those who underwent LRN. We used propensity scoring matching to compare perioperative and survival outcomes, including overall survival, cancer-specific survival, major adverse events, and healthcare charges.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-one patients underwent RRN, and 574 patients underwent LRN. After propensity score matching, the adverse events rate and length of stay were similar between two groups (Major Events: 5.7% vs 6.1%, p = 0.84; prolonged LOS: 17.8% vs 16.1%, p = 0.62). The inpatient charges following RRN were significantly higher than those of LRN ($53,681 vs $44,161, p < 0.01). The mean follow-up of the cohort was 3.2 years. Estimated overall survival (88.0% vs 87.9%, p = 0.90) and cancer-specific survival (98.1% vs 96.4%, p = 0.25) were similar between the two matched cohorts at 3 years.

CONCLUSION

The robotic platform showed no benefit over standard laparoscopy for RN, as we found no difference in oncologic efficacy or adverse event rates.

The comparison of perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted and open partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) has been widely used worldwide, to determine whether RAPN is a safe and effective alternative to open partial nephrectomy (OPN) via the comparison of RANP and OPN.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed within the databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase updated on 30 September 2015. Summary data with their corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random effects or fixed effects model. Heterogeneity and publication bias were also evaluated.

Results

A total of 16 comparative studies including 3024 cases were used for this meta-analysis. There are no significant differences in the demographic characteristic between the two groups, but the age was lower and the tumor size was smaller for the RAPN group. RAPN had a longer operative time and warm ischemia time but which showed less estimated blood loss, hospital stay, and perioperative complications. No differences existed in the margin status, the change of glomerular filtration rate, transfusion rate, and conversion rate between the two groups. There was no significant publication bias.

Conclusions

RAPN offered a lower rate of perioperative complications, less estimated blood loss, and shorter length of hospital stay than OPN, suggesting that RAPN can be an effective alternative to OPN. Well-designed prospective randomized controlled trials will be helpful in validating our findings.

Cost effectiveness of robot-assisted urologic oncological surgery in the United States

Urology has been on the forefront of technological advances in minimally invasive surgery, from laparoscopy to robot-assisted surgeries. As with all new technological advances in medicine, the results of new advances are compared to previously established gold standards. When it comes to robot-assisted urology, morbidity, oncological outcomes, and cost between the same surgeries performed in an open fashion vs with robot-assistance should be assessed. Because healthcare spending is increasingly under more scrutiny, there is debate on the cost effectiveness of robot-assisted surgeries given the high acquisition and maintenance cost of robotic systems. This articles aims to critically evaluate the cost effectiveness of robot-assisted surgeries for prostatectomies, cystectomies, and partial nephrectomies in the United States.

Cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for the prevention of perioperative complications

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and secondarily of laparoscopic PN (LPN) compared to the open procedure.

METHODS

Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis: The model was structured as decision tree. The model was populated with published data. We measured intraoperative, postoperative complications, and inhospital deaths. We expressed costs in US dollars ($).The reference analysis calculated the mean cost and the mean number of each endpoint over 5000 iterations using a second-order Monte Carlo simulation. We conducted extensive sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The mean inhospital costs were $13,186 for RAPN, $10,782 for LPN, and $12,539 for open partial nephrectomy (OPN), respectively. The incremental cost to prevent an inhospital event amounted to $5005 for RAPN compared to OPN. Lower RENAL scores were associated with lower incremental cost per avoided complications. Under assumption of 55 % higher costs in patients with complications, RAPN dominated OPN. LPN dominated OPN. We are aware of the following limitations: First, cost data for patients with and without complications were not available and we assumed the median cost for all cases, i.e., the analysis overestimated the cost associated with RAPN; second, we focused on inhospital estimates and did not apply a societal perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

RAPN appears to be a cost-effective mean to avoid inhospital complications; however, these results might not apply to low-volume hospitals or to other health care systems.

Comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumours with a RENAL nephrometry score ≥7: peri-operative and oncological outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the peri-operative, functional and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) for moderately or highly complex tumours (defined as RENAL nephrometry score ≥7).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analysed the medical charts of 216 patients with complex tumours who underwent LPN (n = 135) or RAPN (n = 81) between 2008 and 2014. Peri-operative data, pathological variables, complications, functional and oncological outcomes were reviewed.

RESULTS

Demographic characteristics were similar in the two groups. LPN was associated with a longer operating time (149.6 vs 135.6 min; P = 0.017) and greater estimated blood loss (220.8 vs 196.5 mL; P = 0.013). RAPN was associated with a higher direct cost. There were no differences in warm ischaemia time, transfusion rate, conversion rate, hospital stay, operative complications and estimated glomerular filtration rate change at 6 months after surgery. The mean follow-ups for LPN and RAPN were 31.4 and 16.5 months, respectively. The 3-year recurrence-free survival rate was 95.2% for LPN and 97.1% for RAPN (P = 0.71).

CONCLUSION

In patients with complex tumours, RAPN and LPN provided acceptable and similar results in terms of peri-operative, functional and oncological outcomes. RAPN was superior to LPN in terms of estimated blood loss and operating time, and LPN was the more cost-effective approach. Both surgery techniques remain viable options in the management of complex tumours with RENAL scores ≥7.

Acceptance, Prevalence and Indications for Robot-Assisted Laparoscopy - Results of a Survey Among Urologists in Germany, Austria and Switzerland

Background: Robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) is being widely accepted in the field of urology as a replacement for conventional laparoscopy (CL). Nevertheless, the process of its integration in clinical routines has been rather spontaneous. Objective: To determine the prevalence of robotic systems (RS) in urological clinics in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, the acceptance of RAL among urologists as a replacement for CL and its current use for 25 different urological indications. Materials and Methods: To elucidate the practice patterns of RAL, a survey at hospitals in Germany, Austria and Switzerland was conducted. All surgically active urology departments in Germany (303), Austria (37) and Switzerland (84) received a questionnaire with questions related to the one-year period prior to the survey. Results: The response rate was 63%. Among the participants, 43% were universities, 45% were tertiary care centres, and 8% were secondary care hospitals. A total of 60 RS (Germany 35, Austria 8, Switzerland 17) were available, and the majority (68%) were operated under public ownership. The perception of RAL and the anticipated superiority of RAL significantly differed between robotic and non-robotic surgeons. For only two urologic indications were more than 50% of the procedures performed using RAL: pyeloplasty (58%) and transperitoneal radical prostatectomy (75%). On average, 35% of robotic surgeons and only 14% of non-robotic surgeons anticipated RAL superiority in some of the 25 indications. Conclusions: This survey provides a detailed insight into RAL implementation in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. RAL is currently limited to a few urological indications with a small number of high-volume robotic centres. These results might suggest that a saturation of clinics using RS has been achieved but that the existing robotic capacities are being utilized ineffectively. The possible reasons for this finding are discussed, and certain strategies to solve these problems are offered.

Mini-flank supra-12th rib incision for open partial nephrectomy for renal tumor with RENAL nephrometry score ≥10: an innovation of traditional open surgery

The skill of supra-12th rib mini-flank approach for open partial nephrectomy (MI-OPN) provides an advanced operative method for renal tumor. Compared with laparoscopic and robotic surgery, it may be a feasible selection for the complex renal tumors. We describe our techniques and results of MI-OPN in complex renal tumors with high RENAL nephrometry score (RENAL nephrometry score ≥10). Fifty-five patients diagnosed with renal tumors between January 2009 and July 2013 were included in this study. Eligibility criteria comprised of patients with complex renal tumor (RENAL score ≥10) being candidates for partial nephrectomy (PN). All patients received MI-OPN and all surgeries were performed by a single urologist. The preoperative workup comprised of medical history, physical examination, and routine laboratory tests. Serum creatinine was recorded preoperatively and 2 to 3 months after operation. Operative time, ischemia time, blood loss, operative and postoperative complications, renal function, and pathology parameters were recorded. MI-OPN was successfully performed in all cases. Mean tumor size was 4.7 cm (range: 2.5-8.1). Mean warm ischemia time was 28.1 minutes (range: 21-39), mean operative time was 105 minutes (range: 70-150) and mean estimated blood loss was 68 mL (range: 10-400). Mean postoperative hospital stay was 6.5 days (range: 5-12). Postoperative complications were found in 3 patients (5.5%). The mean pre- and postoperative serum creatinine levels were 76.2 μmol/L (range: 47-132) and 87.1 μmol/L (range: 61-189) with significant difference (P = 0.004). The mean pre- and postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were 91.5 (range: 34-133) and 82.5 (range: 22-126.5), respectively with significant difference (P = 0.024). In an average follow-up of 19.9 months (range: 8-50), no local recurrence or systemic progression occurred. In conclusion, MI-OPN can combine the benefits of both minimal invasive and traditional open partial nephrectomy (OPN) techniques with a smaller incision. It is an innovation of traditional OPN and suitable for the complex renal tumors with high RENAL nephrometry score safely and effectively.

Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy: experience on 60 cases

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy is still one of the more challenging procedures in urology. Minimizing warm ischemia time (WIT) and bleeding requires efficient intracorporeal suturing. In addition, achieving negative surgical margins requires complete excision of the tumor. Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RALPN) adds the advantages offered by the "Da Vinci system" to laparoscopy, such as the 3-D vision, and the better degree of freedom of surgical instruments.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to report our experience with RALPN.

METHODS

From August 2009 to October 2012, 60 patients underwent RALPN for kidney cancer. The average age of the patients (35 female, 25 male) was 63 (range 48-80) years. Average BMI was 25 (range 21.8-29.7) kg/m2. Average tumor size was 3.2 cm (range 2-6.7 cm). All the procedures were performed by a transperitoneal approach. Ilar clamping was used in all cases: in 47 patients by one intracorporeal tourniquet for the artery and one for the vein; in three cases, ilar clamping was "en block" by Satinsky.

RESULTS

Mean operative time was 167.2 min (140-250) with a WIT of 23.8 min (15-28). The mean estimated blood loss was 260 mL (50-300). In one case, nephrectomy was necessary because the tumor involved the renal pedicle. One patient had pulmonary embolism and one urinary leakage conservatively managed.Pathologic examination revealed clear cell renal cell carcinoma in 58 patients, oncocytoma in one patient, and angiomyolipoma in one patient. All resection margins were free from tumor.

CONCLUSIONS

Partial nephrectomy, facilitated by robotic technology, is more and more frequently performed as a safe and effective minimally invasive procedure.

Cost comparison of open and robotic partial nephrectomy using a short postoperative pathway

OBJECTIVE

To compare immediate perioperative direct costs of open partial nephrectomy (OPN) and robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN), managed under a common care pathway.

METHODS

Retrospective review of detailed institutional cost data for patients treated with OPN and RPN during 2011 was conducted. Cost and clinical data of OPN and RPN were compared for all patients and for patients stratified by length of stay (LOS), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), and RENAL nephrometry scores.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 190 OPN and 63 RPN cases. OPN was associated with higher ASA scores (P <.001), shorter operative times (P = .014), and higher estimated blood loss (P <.001). Median (interquartile range) LOS was 2 days (2-3 days) for OPN compared with 1 day (1-2 days) for RPN (P <.001). Median perioperative cost of OPN was lower than that of RPN with a difference of $3091 (P <.001). Although hospitalization costs were higher in OPN, surgical costs were higher in RPN ($854 and $3695 difference in median costs, respectively; P <.001 for both). The total cost of OPN for patients with an above-average LOS remained lower than that of RPN ($2680 difference in median costs; P = .001). RPN costs remained significantly higher when stratifying patients by their ASA and RENAL nephrometry scores.

CONCLUSION

Despite the shorter hospital LOS associated with RPN, the immediate perioperative cost of OPN was lower than that of RPN for patients managed under a common care pathway, mainly due to high robotic purchase and maintenance costs. In light of the current health care debate, such financial disincentives may compromise the sustainability of advances in medical technology.

Robotic surgery in urological oncology: patient care or market share?

Surgical robotic use has grown exponentially in spite of limited or uncertain benefits and large costs. In certain situations, adoption of robotic technology provides value to patients and society. In other cases, however, the robot provides little or no increase in surgical quality, with increased expense, and, therefore, does not add value to health care. The surgical robot is expensive to purchase, maintain and operate, and can contribute to increased consumerism in relation to surgical procedures, and increased reliance on the technology, thus driving future increases in health-care expenditure. Given the current need for budget constraints, the cost-effectiveness of specific procedures must be evaluated. The surgical robot should be used when cost-effective, but traditional open and laparoscopic techniques also need to be continually fostered.

The impact of non-hilar clamping open partial technique performed for the treatment of patients with small renal masses with lower R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores on renal functions during the early postoperative period

OBJECTIVE

Herein, the impact of off-clamp open partial nephrectomy on early postoperative period renal functions were evaluated in patients with low RENAL nephrometry scoring small renal masses.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-three patients (12 women, and 11 men) who had undergone non-hilar clamping open partial nephrectomy in our clinic between the years 2010, and 2013 were retrospectively evaluated. Mean age, body mass index (BMI), operative time, blood loss, renal nephrometry score, mean hospital stay, pre-, and postoperative serum creatinine (Cr), and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of the patients were assessed.

RESULTS

Mean age, BMI, tumor size, and preoperative renal nephrometry scores were 56.09±10.49 years (36-70 yrs), 24.81±2.44 kg/m(2), 3.68±1.125 cm, and 6.41±1.77 pts, respectively. Mean operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospital stay were detected as 139.14±33.60 min, 274.9±77.02 mL, and 4.27±1.12 days, respectively. Preoperative mean serum Cr, and GFR levels were 0.804±0.216 mg/dL, and 93.97±25.83 mL/min/1.73 m(2), respectively. Postoperative 1. day mean serum Cr, and GFR levels were 0.896±0.25 mg/dL, and 85.94±28.85 mL/min/1,73 m(2), while corresponding 3. month-values were 0.81±0.205 mg/dL, and 93.59±21.00 mL/dk/1.73 m(2), respectively. A statistically significant difference was not found between preoperative, and postoperative 3. month- serum Cr, and GFR levels. However, postoperative 3. month-serum Cr, and GFR levels were lower than corresponding values estimated on postoperative 1. day (p<0.016).

CONCLUSION

One of the important considerations in partial nephrectomy is to preserve renal functions. Therefore, non-hilar clamping open partial nephrectomy should be taken into consideration for surgeons unexperienced especially in laparoscopic surgery with its lower morbidity, and complication rates.

Does robotic assistance confer an economic benefit during laparoscopic radical nephrectomy?

PURPOSE

While robotic assisted radical nephrectomy is safe with outcomes and complication rates comparable to those of the pure laparoscopic approach, there is little evidence of an economic or clinical benefit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From the 2009 to 2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample database we identified patients 18 years old or older who underwent radical nephrectomy for primary renal malignancy. Robotic assisted and laparoscopic techniques were noted. Patients treated with the open technique and those with evidence of metastatic disease were excluded from analysis. Descriptive statistics were performed using the chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests, and the Student t-test. Multiple linear regression was done to examine factors associated with increased hospital costs and charges.

RESULTS

We identified 24,312 radical nephrectomy cases for study inclusion, of which 7,787 (32%) were performed robotically. There was no demographic difference between robotic assisted and pure laparoscopic radical nephrectomy cases. Median total charges were $47,036 vs $38,068 for robotic assisted vs laparoscopic surgery (p <0.001). Median total hospital costs for robotic assisted surgery were $15,149 compared to $11,735 for laparoscopic surgery (p <0.001). There was no difference in perioperative complications or the incidence of death. Compared to the laparoscopic approach robotic assistance conferred an estimated $4,565 and $11,267 increase in hospital costs and charges, respectively, when adjusted for adapted Charlson comorbidity index score, perioperative complications and length of stay (p <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic assisted radical nephrectomy results in increased medical expense without improving patient morbidity. Assuming surgeon proficiency with pure laparoscopy, robotic technology should be reserved primarily for complex surgeries requiring reconstruction. Traditional laparoscopic techniques should continue to be used for routine radical nephrectomy.

Robotic versus open partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

To critically review the currently available evidence of studies comparing robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN).

Materials and Methods

A comprehensive review of the literature from Pubmed, Web of Science and Scopus was performed in October 2013. All relevant studies comparing RPN with OPN were included for further screening. A cumulative meta-analysis of all comparative studies was performed and publication bias was assessed by a funnel plot.

Results

Eight studies were included for the analysis, including a total of 3418 patients (757 patients in the robotic group and 2661 patients in the open group). Although RPN procedures had a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 40.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 14.39–67.40; p = 0.002), patients in this group benefited from a lower perioperative complication rate (19.3% for RPN and 29.5% for OPN; odds ratio [OR]: 0.53; 95%CI, 0.42–0.67; p<0.00001), shorter hospital stay (WMD: −2.78; 95%CI, −3.36 to −1.92; p<0.00001), less estimated blood loss(WMD: −106.83; 95%CI, −176.4 to −37.27; p = 0.003). Transfusions, conversion to radical nephrectomy, ischemia time and estimated GFR change, margin status, and overall cost were comparable between the two techniques. The main limitation of the present meta-analysis is the non-randomization of all included studies.

Conclusions

RPN appears to be an efficient alternative to OPN with the advantages of a lower rate of perioperative complications, shorter length of hospital stay and less blood loss. Nevertheless, high quality prospective randomized studies with longer follow-up period are needed to confirm these findings.