Trifecta Outcomes in Renal Hilar Tumors: A Comparison Between Robotic and Open Partial Nephrectomy

Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy for Hilar and Nonhilar Renal Masses: Comparison of Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Results in a Multicentre Prospective Cohort (NEPRAH Study, UroCCR 175)

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

A hilar location for a renal tumour is sometimes viewed as a limiting factor for safe partial nephrectomy. Our aim was to evaluate perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for hilar tumours (RAPN-H) in comparison to RAPN for nonhilar tumours (RAPN-NH).

METHODS

We conducted an observational, multicentre cohort study using prospectively collected data from the French Research Network on Kidney Cancer (UroCCR). The registry includes data for 3551 patients who underwent RAPN for localised or locally advanced renal masses between 2010 and 2023 in 29 hospitals in France. We studied the impact of a hilar location on surgery, postoperative renal function, tumour characteristics, and survival. We also compared rates of trifecta achievement (warm ischaemia time [WIT] <25 min, negative surgical margins, and no perioperative complications) between the groups. Finally, we performed a subgroup analysis of RAPN without vascular clamping. Variables were compared in univariable analysis and using multivariable linear, logistic, and Cox proportional-hazards models adjusted for relevant patient and tumour covariates.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

The analytical population included 3451 patients, of whom 2773 underwent RAPN-NH and 678 underwent RAPN-H. Longer WIT (β = 2.4 min; p < 0.01), longer operative time (β = 11.4 min; p < 0.01) and a higher risk of postoperative complications (odds ratio 1.33; p = 0.05) were observed in the hilar group. Blood loss, the perioperative transfusion rate, postoperative changes in the estimated glomerular filtration rate, and trifecta achievement rates were comparable between the groups (p > 0.05). At mean follow-up of 31.9 mo, there was no significant difference in recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-1.2; p = 0.3), cancer-specific survival (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.48-2.6; p = 0.79), or overall survival (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.52-1.53; p = 0.69).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Patient and tumour characteristics rather than just hilar location should be the main determinants of the optimal surgical strategy for hilar tumours.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We found that kidney tumours located close to major kidney blood vessels led to a longer operation and a higher risk of complications during robot-assisted surgery to remove the tumour. However, tumours in these locations were not related to a higher risk of kidney function loss, cancer recurrence, or death.

Perioperative, oncologic, and functional outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for special types of renal tumors (hilar, endophytic, or cystic): an evidence-based analysis of comparative outcomes

Purpose

This study aims to perform a pooled analysis to compare the outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) between complex tumors (hilar, endophytic, or cystic) and non-complex tumors (nonhilar, exophytic, or solid) and evaluate the effects of renal tumor complexity on outcomes in patients undergoing RAPN.

Methods

Four databases were systematically searched, including Science, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, to identify relevant studies published in English up to December 2022. Review Manager 5.4 was used for statistical analyses and calculations. The study was registered with PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42023394792).

Results

In total, 14 comparative trials, including 3758 patients were enrolled. Compared to non-complex tumors, complex tumors were associated with a significantly longer warm ischemia time (WMD 3.67 min, 95% CI 1.78, 5.57; p = 0.0001), more blood loss (WMD 22.84 mL, 95% CI 2.31, 43.37; p = 0.03), and a higher rate of major complications (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.50, 3.67; p = 0.0002). However, no statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in operative time, length of stay, transfusion rates, conversion to open nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy rates, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline, intraoperative complication, overall complication, positive surgical margins (PSM), local recurrence, and trifecta achievement.

Conclusions

RAPN can be a safe and effective procedure for complex tumors (hilar, endophytic, or cystic) and provides comparable functional and oncologic outcomes to non-complex tumors.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=394792, identifier CRD42023394792.

Trifecta and pentafecta outcomes following robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for hilar versus nonhilar tumors: A propensity-matched analysis

Introduction

Hilar tumors are a unique subset of complex renal masses posing a potential surgical challenge during partial nephrectomy. The outcomes of hilar masses have not been compared to non-hilar renal masses of similar RENAL nephrometry score (RNS). In this study, we analyzed the outcomes of hilar versus nonhilar masses after a propensity score matching.

Methods

Prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent robot assisted PN between November 2014 and December 2018 was abstracted for hilar and nonhilar tumors. We performed propensity matching for baseline variables such as age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, preoperative glomerular filtration rate, and RNS for each patient on the basis of propensity scores.

Results

We included 48 patients with hilar tumors and 153 with nonhilar tumors. On propensity matching, 41 patients were included in each group. The mean operative time (162.4 ± 48.9 min vs. 144.1 ± 38.8 min, P = 0.48), warm ischemia time (29.0 ± 8.8 min vs. 24.4 ± 8.2 min, P = 0.12), and the estimated blood loss (201.8 ± 184.7 ml vs. 150.6 ± 160.5 ml, P = 0.37) were not significantly different between the hilar and the nonhilar groups. Trifecta was achieved in only 14/41 (34.1%) of the patients in the hilar group as compared to 24/41 (58.5%) in the nonhilar group (P = 0.027). Logistic regression analysis identified that hilar location of the tumors was not an independent predictor of overall complications (OR 6.37, confidence interval [CI] 0.5-69.4, P = 0.4), trifecta (OR 0.38, CI 0.14-1.0, P = 0.051), and pentafecta outcomes (OR 0.4, CI 0.1-1.51, P = 0.17).

Conclusions

Hilar location was associated with poorer trifecta outcomes compared to the nonhilar tumors. However, hilar location per se was not an independent predictor of overall complications and trifecta and pentafecta outcomes.

Robotic renal and adrenal oncologic surgery: A contemporary review

Robot-assisted surgery has evolved over time. Radical nephrectomy with inferior vena cava thrombectomy is feasible and safe for level I, II and III thrombus in high volume centers. Though it is feasible for level IV thrombus, this procedure needs a multi-departmental co-operation. However, the safety of robot-assisted procedures in this subset is still unknown. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy has been universally approved and found oncologically safe. Robotic adrenalectomy has been increasingly utilized for select cases, especially in bilateral tumors and for retroperitoneal adrenalectomy.

Comparison of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for Renal Hilar Tumors: Results from a Tertiary Referral Center

Objective: To compare perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) for renal hilar tumors. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent minimally invasive partial nephrectomy for renal hilar tumors at our institution between January 2014 and August 2018. The entire cohort was divided into two groups according to surgical approach: RAPN and LPN group. Perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes of the two groups were collected and compared. Results: A total of 116 patients with renal hilar tumors were identified, including 52 patients who underwent RAPN and 64 patients who underwent LPN, respectively. Demographic baseline characteristics were similar in two groups. There were no differences between the RAPN and LPN groups for operative time, transfusion rate, conversion rate, surgical margin, perioperative complication, and hospital stay. Compared with the LPN group, the RAPN group was associated with significant less estimated blood loss (100 vs 150 mL; p < 0.001), shorter warm ischemia time (20.3 vs 24.5 minutes; p = 0.001), and higher direct cost (p < 0.001). Percentage of estimated glomerular filtration rate change at 6 months after surgery was lower in RAPN group than LPN group (10.4% vs 15.2%; p = 0.020). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of oncologic outcomes. Conclusions: For hilar tumors, both RAPN and LPN were safe and feasible surgical treatments. RAPN might be associated with superior perioperative outcomes (less estimated blood loss and shorter warm ischemia time) and better postoperative renal functional preservation. RAPN might be the preferred option when condition permits for renal hilar tumors.

Retroperitoneoscopic approach for highly complex posterior renal hilar tumors

Objectives:

To show our single-center experience in retroperitoneoscopic approach for highly complex posterior hilar tumors. Minimally invasive nephron sparing surgery for renal hilar tumors is extremely challenging due to their anatomic location, close to the main renal vessels and the collecting system (1). Transperitoneal approach is feasible, but highly complex because the anterior disposition of the vasculature. Retroperitoneal approach can easily provide access to the posterior hilar structures and the posterolateral surface of the kidney(2, 3).

Materials and Methods:

We retrospectively reviewed our hilar renal tumor database and analyzed those in which a retroperitoneoscopic approach was chosen. The RENAL score was then calculated, and operative and ischemia times were recorded. We also collected the mean hospital stay and the presence of complications. Pathology reports and follow-up were also gathered.

Results:

Five of our twelve highly complex hilar renal tumor patients were treated using a retroperitoneoscopic approach. Mean RENAL score was 10. Mean operative time was 135 minutes. Mean warm ischemia time was 14 minutes. Mean hospital stay was 4 days. We have recorded 2 complications. One patient required a transfusion and another presented with an urinary fistula which was treated by double J stent placement. The pathology report showed a clear cell renal cell carcinoma pT1a in most of the cases. Only one patient had a positive margin. To date, no recurrences have been noticed.

Conclusions:

The treatment of complex renal hilar tumors in a minimally invasive fashion is highly challenging even in experienced hands. Retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy is feasible, safe and effective for the treatment of such lesions. Long-term oncologic outcomes of this approach are awaited.

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.