Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes Between Retroperitoneal Single-Port and Multiport Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomies

Single-Port vs Multiport Robotic Surgery in Urologic Oncology: A Narrative Review

Introduction: Robotic surgery has improved the oncologic and functional outcomes of many urologic oncology procedures by optimizing visualization and instrument maneuverability. Since its FDA approval in 2018, the daVinci single-port (SP) platform has become increasingly utilized in urologic oncology, with its theoretical advantages over the standard multiport (MP) platform including improved cosmesis, reduced pain, and shorter hospitalization. Given this platform's relative novelty, comparisons between SP and MP robotic surgeries in urologic oncology tend to be small, non-randomized studies performed at centers of excellence. We review the existing literature comparing oncologic and functional outcomes between SP and MP surgeries to treat prostate, kidney, and bladder cancer. Methods: A literature review was performed in PubMed for studies comparing SP and MP prostatectomies, nephrectomies, and cystectomies from 2018 to 2024. The search was limited to English studies. Studies evaluating prostatectomy, nephrectomy, and cystectomy for nononcologic indications were excluded. Results: No difference in margin status or recurrence was definitively demonstrated between SP and MP radical prostatectomy, partial nephrectomy, or radical cystectomy. No clear difference in operative time, blood loss, or complication rates between SP and MP surgery was found. SP surgery may improve length of stay, pain, and satisfaction with incisions compared with MP surgery, though these differences were not robustly demonstrated across all studies. Key functional outcomes, such as change in kidney function in partial nephrectomy, and erectile/urinary function in radical prostatectomy, were similar between the SP and MP platforms. Conclusion: Based on current evidence from experienced surgeons at centers of excellence, the daVinci SP platform allows urologists to perform common oncologic procedures safely and effectively. Currently, no data definitively establishes improved oncologic or functional outcomes for SP surgery over MP surgery, though improved hospital stay and cosmesis are identified as theoretical benefits of an SP procedure.

Development of Patient-Specific Nomogram to Assist in Clinical Decision-Making for Single Port Versus Multi-Port Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: A Report from the Single Port Advanced Robotic Consortium

Objective: To develop a patient-specific algorithm to better guide clinical decision-making when considering between single port (SP) and multi-port (MP) robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). Materials and Methods: A retrospective review was performed on the institutional review board-approved, prospectively maintained multi-institutional database of the Single Port Advanced Research Consortium to identify all consecutive patients who underwent SP and MP-RPN between 2019 and 2023. Baseline clinicodemographic variables were used to identify the significant predictors of SP-RPN. The significant variables were used to construct a nomogram to predict the likelihood of SP vs MP-RPN. Results: Of the 1021 patients included in our analysis, 189 (18.5%) and 832 (81.5%) underwent SP and MP-RPN, respectively. Statistically significant predictors of SP-RPN included a lower comorbidity profile, a significant abdominal surgical history as characterized by a higher Hostile Abdomen Index, as well as tumors of lower complexity. The nomogram generated using the aforementioned variables demonstrated a reasonable performance with an area under the curve of 0.79. An optimal cutoff point was determined, with likelihood ratios above 0.12 indicating a preference for SP-RPN. Of note, all SP-RPN cases that scored above the 0.12 cutoff exhibited improved perioperative outcomes, including shorter ischemia time and less intraoperative blood loss. Conclusions: In this study, we have devised a novel patient selection nomogram aimed at enhancing clinical decision-making within the expanding repertoire of RPN approaches. The findings highlighted in this study offer valuable guidance to facilitate appropriate patient selection and thereby ensuring favorable perioperative outcomes associated with RPN procedures.

Comparison of outcomes between single-port and multiport retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy

INTRODUCTION

Single-port (SP) robotic surgical system performs well in small anatomical spaces, which makes it suitable for retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). However, there is limited evidence comparing the safety and feasibility of SP RPN to multiport (MP) RPN. To address this gap in evidence, we sought to analyze and compare the safety of retroperitoneal RPN between SP and MP approaches.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study using data from the Single Port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC) and a multicenter database of patients who underwent retroperitoneal RPN using either SP or MP between 2017 and 2023. Baseline, perioperative, and postoperative data were compared using t-tests, Mann-Whitney U test, χ2 test, and Fisher exact test. Multivariable analyses were conducted using robust and Poisson regressions.

RESULTS

A total of 286 patients (SP RPN, n = 86 [30%]; MP RPN, n = 200 [70%]) underwent retroperitoneal RPN. R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score and tumor location were significantly different between the 2 groups. Notably, the ischemia time was significantly shorter in the MP group (16 vs. SP, 22 minutes, P < 0.001). Adjusting for baseline characteristics, the ischemia time was approximately 7.89 minutes longer for patients in the SP group compared to the MP group, on average (95% CI: 5.87, 9.92; P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in operative time, EBL, blood transfusion, conversion rates, LOS, PSM, and overall 30-day postoperative complications between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that retroperitoneal SP and MP RPN have comparable perioperative and postoperative outcomes, except for the longer ischemia time in the SP platform. SP RPN is a safe and viable alternative; however, further research is needed to explore its potential benefits, cost-effectiveness, and long-term oncologic outcomes.

Single-Port Versus Multi-Port Robotic Retroperitoneal Partial Nephrectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison

Objective: To compare the surgical results of retroperitoneal (RP) robot partial nephrectomy (PNx) using either a single-port robot (SP) or a multi-port robot (MP). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all RP robotic PNx performed at a single institution from September 2021-when the SP robot was introduced to the institution-through April 2023. In total, 125 patients underwent the surgery; 81 patients were treated with surgery using a MP robot whereas 44 patients were treated with surgery using a SP. All MP surgeries were performed with da Vinci Xi (Intuitive, Sunnyvale, California, USA), while all SP surgeries were performed with da Vinci SP (Intuitive, Sunnyvale, California, USA). We performed a propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis of these 125 patients. Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups after PSM. In terms of operation time, that for MP was 103.68 ± 21.89 minutes whereas that for SP was 95.43 ± 32.22 minutes (p-value = 0.164). Meanwhile, in terms of console time, that for MP was 70.95 ± 21.92 minutes whereas that for SP was 64.14 ± 32.06 minutes (p-value = 0.248). In terms of estimated blood loss was 90.91 ± 91.06 mL in MP and 92.27 ± 104.30 mL in SP (p-value = 0.948). Lastly, there was a statistically significant difference in warm ischemic time, as it was 17.18 ± 6.56 minutes in MP and 13.82 ± 4.59 in SP (p-value = 0.007). There were no statistically significant differences between MP and SP in any other surgical outcomes. Conclusions: SP robot RP PNx demonstrated comparable outcomes to those achieve using MP procedures. This means SP robot RP PNx can be considered a preferable and more convenient surgical approach than conventional methods, particularly when dealing with small renal masses located in the posterior side of the kidney.

Robotic-assisted surgery for the treatment of urologic cancers: recent advances

INTRODUCTION

Recent advancements in single-port surgery, robotic platforms, 3D models and artificial intelligence have transformed surgical procedures, especially in urology. These innovations enhance precision, safety, and efficacy, reducing invasiveness and recovery times. The review focuses on the latest in robotic-assisted surgery for genitourinary cancers, highlighting the shift toward personalized, minimally invasive treatments.

AREAS COVERED

A bibliographic search across PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE databases focused on the last four years of innovations in robotic surgery for urologic tumors. The review highlights the use of the Da Vinci Single Port robotic system, available robotic platforms worldwide, advancements in 3D virtual models, artificial intelligence in robotic surgery and the application of molecular imaging for assessing primary lymph nodes and treating lymph node metastases and local recurrences in prostate cancer.

EXPERT OPINION

The integration of single-port surgery, new robotic platforms, 3D models and artificial intelligence in urological oncology promises transformative impacts on diagnosis, treatment and cost-effectiveness. Despite benefits like enhanced precision and expanded surgical access, challenges such as high costs, training needs, and technological integration barriers persist. Collaboration and further research are critical to optimize outcomes, improve safety protocols, and ensure equitable global access to these innovations.

Comparison of single-port versus multi-port robotic assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative and oncological outcomes

The safety and efficacy of single-port and multi-port robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (SP-RAPN and MP-RAPN, respectively) were assessed for treating partial nephrectomy in this study. A systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases was conducted up to June 2024 to compare studies on SP-RAPN and MP-RAPN. Primary outcomes included perioperative results, complications, and oncological outcomes. Eight studies involving 1014 patients were analyzed. For binary outcomes, comparisons were performed using odds ratios (OR), and for continuous variables, weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The search failed to discover significant meaningful variations in operating times (p = 0.54), off-clamp procedure (P = 0.36), blood loss (p = 0.31), positive surgical margins (PSMs) (p = 0.78), or major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3) (p = 0.68) between SP-RAPN and MP-RAPN. However, shorter hospital stays (WMD - 0.26 days, 95% CI - 0.36 to - 0.15; p < 0.00001) and longer warm ischemia times (WIT) (WMD 3.13 min, 95% CI 0.81-5.46; p = 0.008) were related to SP-RAPN, and higher transfusion rate (OR 2.99, 95% CI 1.31-6.80; p = 0.009) compared to MP-RAPN. SP-RAPN performed better in terms of hospital stay but had slightly higher rates of transfusion, off-clamp procedures, and warm ischemia time (WIT) compared to MP-RAPN. As an emerging technology, preliminary research suggests that SP-RAPN is a feasible and safe method for carrying out a nephrectomy partial. However, compared to MP-RAPN, it shows inferior outcomes regarding (WIT) and transfusion rates.

Surgical outcomes of novel retroperitoneal low anterior vs posterior and transperitoneal access in single-port partial nephrectomy

PURPOSE

Single-Port Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy (SP-RAPN) can be performed by transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. However, there is a lack of surgical outcomes for novel Retroperitoneal Low Anterior Access (LAA) in SP-RAPN. The study compared outcomes of the standard approach (SA), considering transperitoneal (TP) and posterior retroperitoneal (RP) access vs LAA in SP-RAPN series.

METHODS

102 consecutive patients underwent SP-RAPN between 2019 and 2023 at a tertiary referral robotic center were identified. Baseline characteristics, peri- and post-operative outcomes were collected. Patients were stratified according to surgical approach into standard (RP or TP) vs LAA and, subsequently, RP vs LAA. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to test the probability of the same-day discharge adjusting for comorbidity indexes.

RESULTS

Overall, 102 consecutive patients were included in this study (68 SA - 26 TP and 42 posterior RP vs 34 LAA). Median age was 60 (IQR 51.5-66) years and median BMI was 31 (IQR 26.3-37.6). No baseline differences were observed. LAA exhibited significantly shorter length of stay (LOS) (median 10 [IQR 8-12] vs 24 [IQR 12-30.2.] hours, p < .0001), reduced post-operative pain (p < .0001) and decreased narcotic use on 0-1 PO Day (p < .001) compared to SA and RP only. Multivariate analysis, adjusting for comorbidities, identified LAA as a strong predictor for Same-Day Discharge.

CONCLUSION

LAA is an effective approach as well as RP and TP, regardless of the renal mass location, whether it is anterior or posterior, upper/mid or lower pole, yielding favorable outcomes in LOS, post-operative pain and decreased narcotics use compared to SA in SP-RAPN.

Versatility of Single Port Retroperitoneal Low Anterior Access: Early Outcomes in Multiple Procedures

Purpose: This study aimed to assess early outcomes of the single port (SP) robotic low anterior access (LAA) for all upper urinary tract surgeries. In addition, it aimed to explore the impact of clinical factors, notably Body Mass Index (BMI), on post-operative outcomes and length of hospital stay. Materials and Methods: Overall, 76 consecutive patients underwent SP robotic surgery with LAA involving all upper urinary tract pathologies, with data collected prospectively. Baseline characteristics, intra- and post-operative outcomes, pain levels, and opioid use were analyzed. Statistical methods, including logistic regression and locally weighted scatterplot smoothing analysis, were used to assess same-day discharge (SDD) predictors and the association between BMI and SDD probability. According to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol, only data recorded in our electronic medical record system was included. Results: Ten different procedures were performed with LAA, with no need for conversion to open surgery and complication rates in line with the literature (30 days: 5%, 90 days: 6.6%). Notably, 77.6% of patients were discharged on the same day. A significant association was found between BMI and prolonged hospital stay, particularly in obese patients (BMI ≥30 kg/m2). Post-operative pain was generally low (median VAS: 4), with over 70% discharged without opioid prescriptions. Conclusions: The novel LAA is a versatile approach for various upper urinary tract surgeries, including in obese patients. While achieving satisfactory post-operative outcomes, increased BMI correlated with a reduced likelihood of SDD. Further studies, including larger cohorts and multicenter collaborations, are warranted to explore anesthesiologic management and validate these findings.

Single-port vs multi-port robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: A single center propensity score-matched analysis

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study is to compare key outcomes of Single-Port (SP) and Multi-Port (MP) robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on our prospectively collected database of patients who underwent SP-RAPN or MP-RAPN at our institution from January 2021 to August 2023. To adjust for potential baseline pre-operative confounders, a 1:1 propensity-score matching analysis (PSMa) was performed. The primary endpoint was to compare perioperative outcomes between the two groups. The secondary endpoint was to compare the achievement of the "Trifecta" outcome (defined as negative surgical margins, absence of high-grade complications and change in eGFR values (ΔeGFR) < 10% at 6 months follow-up) in the matched cohort.

RESULTS

After PSMa, 30 SP cases were matched 1:1 to 30 MP cases. In the matched cohort, there were no significant differences between SP and MP approaches in operative time, estimated blood loss, ischemia time, transfusions rate, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and positive surgical margin rates. Patients who underwent SP-RAPN had a shorter median length of stay [25 (IQR:24.0-34.5) vs 34 (IQR:30.2-48.0) hours, p < 0.003]. The Trifecta outcome was achieved in 16 (57%) of SP patients and 17 (63%) of MP patients (p = 0.8).

CONCLUSIONS

SP-RAPN can be safely implemented in a Center with an established MP-RAPN program. Despite being early in the SP-RAPN experience, key surgical outcomes are not compromised. While offering comparable perioperative and short-term functional outcomes, SP-RAPN can translate into faster recovery and shorter LOS, paving the way for outpatient robotic surgery.

Comparing the safety and efficacy of single-port versus multi-port robotic-assisted techniques in urological surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Comparing the safety and efficacy of single-port (SP) versus multi-port (MP) robotic-assisted techniques in urological surgeries.

METHODS

A systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis was performed using PRISMA criteria for primary outcomes of interest, and quality assessment followed AMSTAR. Four databases were systematically searched: Embase, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The search time range is from database creation to December 2022. Stata16 was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

There were 17 studies involving 5015 patients. In urological surgeries, single-port robotics had shorter length of stay (WMD = - 0.63, 95% Cl [- 1.06, - 0.21], P < 0.05), less estimated blood loss (WMD = - 19.56, 95% Cl [- 32.21, - 6.91], P < 0.05), less lymph node yields (WMD = - 3.35, 95% Cl [- 5.16, - 1.55], P < 0.05), less postoperative opioid use (WMD = - 5.86, 95% Cl [- 8.83, - 2.88], P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in operative time, positive margins rate, overall complications rate, and major complications rate.

CONCLUSION

Single-port robotics appears to have similar perioperative outcomes to multi-port robotics in urological surgery. In radical prostatectomy, single-port robotics has shown some advantages, but the specific suitability of single-port robots for urological surgical types needs to be further explored.

Transperitoneal Versus Retroperitoneal Single-port Robotic-assisted Partial Nephrectomy: An Analysis from the Single Port Advanced Research Consortium

BACKGROUND

In the surgical management of kidney tumors, such as in multiport technology, single-port (SP) robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) can be performed using the transperitoneal (TP) or retroperitoneal (RP) approach. However, there is a dearth of literature on the efficacy and safety of either approach for SP RAPN.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the peri- and postoperative outcomes of the TP and RP approaches for SP RAPN.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This is a retrospective cohort study using data from the Single Port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC) database of five institutions. All patients underwent SP RAPN for a renal mass between 2019 and 2022.

INTERVENTION

TP versus RP SP RAPN.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Baseline characteristics, and peri- and postoperative outcomes were compared between both the approaches using χ2 test, Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Student t test.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 219 patients (121 [55.25%] TP, 98 [44.75%] RP) were included in the study. Of them, 115 (51.51%) were male, and the mean age was 60 ± 11 yr. RP had a significantly higher proportion of posterior tumors (54 [55.10%] RP vs 28 [23.14%] TP, p < 0.001), while other baseline characteristics were comparable between both the approaches. There was no statistically significant difference in ischemia time (18 ± 9 vs 18 ± 11 min, p = 0.898), operative time (147 ± 67 vs 146 ± 70 min, p = 0.925), estimated blood loss (p = 0.167), length of stay (1.06 ± 2.25 vs 1.33 ± 1.05 d, p = 0.270), overall complications (5 [5.10%] vs 7 [5.79%]), and major complication rate (2 [2.04%] vs 2 [1.65%], p = 1.000). No difference was observed in positive surgical margin rate (p = 0.472) or delta eGFR at median 6-mo follow-up (p = 0.273). Limitations include retrospective design and no long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

With proper patient selection based on patient and tumor characteristics, surgeons can opt for either the TP or the RP approach for SP RAPN, and maintain satisfactory outcomes.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The use of a single port (SP) is a novel technology for performing robotic surgery. Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is a surgery to remove a portion of the kidney due to kidney cancer. Depending on patient characteristics and surgeons' preference, SP can be performed via two approaches for RAPN: through the abdomen or through the space behind the abdominal cavity. We compared outcomes between these two approaches for patients receiving SP RAPN, finding that they were comparable. We conclude that with proper patient selection based on patient and tumor characteristics, surgeons can opt for either the TP or the RP approach for SP RAPN, and maintain satisfactory outcomes.

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.

Single-port vs multi-port robot-assisted renal surgery: analysis of perioperative outcomes for excision of high and low complexity renal masses

There is emerging but limited data assessing single-port (SP) robot-assisted surgery as an alternative to multi-port (MP) platforms. We compared perioperative outcomes between SP and MP robot-assisted approaches for excision of high and low complexity renal masses. Retrospective chart review was performed for patients undergoing robot-assisted partial or radical nephrectomy using the SP surgical system (n = 23) at our institution between November 2019 and November 2021. Renal masses were categorized as high complexity (7+) or low complexity (4-6) using the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scoring system. Adjusting for baseline characteristics, patients were matched using a prospectively maintained MP database in a 2:1 (MP:SP) ratio. For high complexity tumors (n = 12), SP surgery was associated with a significantly longer operative time compared to MP (248.4 vs 188.1 min, p = 0.02) but a significantly shorter length of stay (1.9 vs 2.8 days, p = 0.02). For low complexity tumors (n = 11), operative time (177.7 vs 161.4 min, p = 0.53), estimated blood loss (69.6.0 vs 142.0 mL, p = 0.62), and length of stay (1.6 vs 1.8 days, p = 0.528) were comparable between SP and MP approaches. Increasing nephrometry score was associated with a greater relative increase in operative time for SP compared to MP renal surgery (p = 0.07) using best of fit linear modeling. SP robot-assisted partial and radical nephrectomy is safe and feasible for low complexity renal masses. For high complexity renal masses, the SP system is associated with a significantly longer operative time compared to the MP technique. Careful consideration should be given when selecting patients for SP robot-assisted kidney surgery.

Surgical Management of Localized Disease and Small Renal Masses

The incidence of renal cancer has increased over the past several decades, but mortality has declined. This is thought to be related in part to earlier detection of renal masses which portend excellent 5-year survival rates. Management of small renal masses and localized disease include both nonsurgical and surgical options. The choice of intervention is ultimately based on comprehensive evaluation and shared decision-making. This article provides a comprehensive review of the current surgical management options for localized renal cancer.

Simplifying Retroperitoneal Robotic Single-port Surgery: Novel Supine Anterior Retroperitoneal Access

BACKGROUND

Multiport robotic surgery in the retroperitoneum is limited by the bulky robotic frame and clashing of instruments. Moreover, patients are placed in the lateral decubitus position, which has been linked to complications.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility and safety of a supine anterior retroperitoneal access (SARA) technique with the da Vinci Single-Port (SP) robotic platform.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Between October 2022 and January 2023, 18 patients underwent surgery using the SARA technique for renal cancer, urothelial cancer, or ureteral stenosis. Perioperative variables were prospectively collected and outcomes were assessed.

SURGICAL PROCEDURE

With the patient in a supine position, a 3-cm incision is made at the McBurney point and the abdominal muscles are dissected. Finger dissection is used to develop the retroperitoneal space for the da Vinci SP access port. After docking, the first step is to dissect retroperitoneal tissue to reveal the psoas muscle. This allows identification of the ureter, the inferior renal pole, and the hilum.

MEASUREMENTS

A descriptive statistical analysis was performed. Data collected included demographics, operative time, warm ischemia time (WIT), surgical margin status, complications, length of hospital stay, 30-d Clavien-Dindo complications, and postoperative narcotic use.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Twelve patients underwent partial nephrectomy (PN) and two each underwent pyeloplasty, radical nephroureterectomy, and radical nephrectomy. In the PN group, mean age was 57 yr (interquartile range [IQR] 30-73), median body mass index was 32 kg/m2 (IQR 17-58), and 25% had stage ≥3 chronic kidney disease. The median Charlson comorbidity index was 3 (IQR 0-7) and 75% of PN patients had an American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥3. The median RENAL score was 5 (IQR 4-7). The median WIT was 25 min (IQR 16-48) and the median tumor size was 35 mm (IQR 16-50). The median estimated blood loss was 105 ml (IQR 20-400) and the median operative time was 160 min (IQR 110-200). Positive surgical margins were found in one patient. In the overall cohort, one patient was readmitted and managed conservatively; 83% of the PN group were discharged on the same day as their surgery, with the remainder discharged the next day. At 7 d after surgery, no patients reported narcotic use.

CONCLUSIONS

The SARA approach is feasible and safe. Larger studies are needed to confirm this approach as a one-step solution for upper urinary tract surgery.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We assessed initial outcomes of a novel approach for accessing the retroperitoneum (the space behind the abdominal cavity and in front of the back muscles and spine) during robot-assisted surgery in the upper urinary tract. The patient is placed on their back and surgery is performed with a single-port robot. Our results show that this approach was feasible and safe, with low complication rates, less postoperative pain, and earlier discharge. This is a promising start, but larger studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Early Postoperative Outcomes of Retroperitoneal Partial Nephrectomy of Anterior and Posterior Renal Tumors: A Five-year Experience in A Single Center

OBJECTIVE

Partial nephrectomy (PN) is one of the surgical treatment options for renal tumors. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of retroperitoneal PN for anterior and posterior tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study enrolled 177 patients who had renal tumors that were detected on abdominal computed tomography and underwent PN between January 2017 and April 2021. Tumor position was defined by the anatomic avascular Brodel's line. Surgical outcomes were compared between approaches using the chi-squared, Student's t-tests, logistic regression analysis and stratification analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 177 patients, 97 (54.8%) patients had anterior renal tumors and 80 (45.2%) had posterior renal tumors. On comparing the surgical results between the two groups, the anterior group had higher levels of hemoglobin (Hb) reduction (-1.92 g/dL vs. -1.54 g/dL, p = 0.0444), but the estimated blood loss showed no significant difference between the two groups (497.6 mL vs. 433.2 mL, p = 0.4149). In addition, the alter in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at post-operative 1st day (p = 0.5616), 6th month (p = 0.5046) and at post-operative 1st year (p = 0.7085) were not significantly different between the two groups. Other surgical outcomes, such as blood transfusion rate, complications, and lengths of stay, also had no significant difference. Stratified analysis revealed the anterior renal tumors had a 3.76 times risk (p = 0.0186) than the posterior tumors for decreasing Hb > 10% under laparoscopic PN. No post-operative gastrointestinal-related complications were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated retroperitoneal surgical access to renal tumors and revealed equivalent surgical outcomes for both anterior and posterior renal tumors. Moreover, anterior renal tumors had benefits under robotic PN for bleeding control. Retroperitoneal PN can be considered a good approach for both anterior and posterior renal tumors with few intra-abdominal complications.

Comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy with single port robot

PURPOSE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of single port robotic transperitoneal (TP) and retroperitoneal (RP) partial nephrectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From September 2021 to June 2022, 30 sequential cases of partial nephrectomy performed after a single port (SP) robot was introduced to our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. All patients were diagnosed with T1 renal cell carcinoma and operated by a single expert in conventional robot with a da Vinci SP platform.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients underwent SP robotic partial nephrectomy, including 16 (53.33%) by TP and 14 (47.67%) by RP. Body mass index was slightly higher in the TP group (25.37 vs. 23.53, p-value = 0.040). Other demographic characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference in ischemic time (727.41 ± 561.18 sec for TP and 698.56 ± 299.23 sec for RP, p-value = 0.812) or console time (67.97 ± 24.06 min for TP and 69.71 ± 28.66 min for RP, p-value = 0.724). There was no statistically significant difference in perioperative or pathological outcome either. Renal function calculated from DTPA was 103.33 ml/min/1.73m2 for TP and 101.33 ml/min/1.73m2 for RP (p-value = 0.214) postoperatively. It was 90.36 ml/min/1.73m2 for TP and 87.74 ml/min/1.73m2 for RP (p-value = 0.592) at 90 days after surgery.

CONCLUSION

SP robot partial nephrectomy can be performed effectively and safely regardless of the approach. Both TP and RP approaches offer similar perioperative and postoperative outcomes for T1 RCC.