Robot-assisted laparoscopic and open live-donor nephrectomy: a comparison of donor morbidity and early renal allograft outcomes

Robotic-Assisted Nephrectomy for Living Kidney Donation-Single Center Initial Experience (Case Series) and Review of the Literature

Background: Robotic-assisted nephrectomy for living kidney-donation (RANLD) has the potential of becoming the leading technique of harvesting kidney, if expertise is available. The aim of this work is to present our initial experience with robotic technique with additional hand-assistance. Materials and Methods: We initiated RANLD at our clinic using the DaVinci System in September 2022, since then harvesting six kidneys, four left and two right; in two cases, multiple arteries existed. The renal vessels were ligated using vascular staplers. All the operations included a hand-assist with the use of Gelport. The mean operation time was 119.2 min (SD 12 min). Results: There were no conversions or donors' post-operative complications. Time of discharge from the hospital was 4.5 days post-operatively. Total hospital length of stay was 7.8 days. All the harvested kidneys were transplanted, five of them with adequate function, three with initially delayed function, and one needed to be removed due to thrombotic complications. Post-operative was pain assessed on the VAS scale and overall pain was assessed according to the NRS scale. At the discharge day, donors' performance status was about 87.5% according to the Karnofsky scale. The donors resumed their normal life activity within 15.7 days and returned to work within 45.2 days. The serum mean creatinine level before the donation was 0.85 mg/dL (SD 0.1 mg/dL), and mean eGFR (MDRD) = 91.8 mL/min/1.73 m2 (SD 16.1 mL/min/1.73 m2). Conclusions: Further development of RANLD could lead to an increase in the number of living kidney donors, particularly in Poland where the number is currently lower than that of deceased donors. Prolonged operation time, longer warm ischemic time, and high equipment costs are significant drawbacks of RANLD.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopy living donor nephrectomy: Technique and results of a monocentric retrospective series

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted nephrectomy for living kidney donation (LKD) has been described in the literature as a safe and reproducible technique in high volume centers with extensive robotic surgery experience. Any surgical procedure in a healthy individual ought to be safe in regards to complications. The objective of this study was to evaluate the Robotic-assisted Living Donor Nephrectomy (RLDN) experience in a robotic surgery expert center.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study from 11/2011 and 12/2019. In total, 118 consecutive Living Donor (LD) kidney transplants were performed at our institution. All the procedures were performed by robotic-assisted laparoscopic approach. Extraction was performed by iliac (IE), vaginal (VE) or umbilical extraction (UE). The left kidney was preferred even if the vascular anatomy was not modal.

RESULTS

For donors: the median operative time was 120min with 50mL of blood loss. The median warm ischemia time was 4min, with a non-significant shorter duration with the UE (4min) in comparison with IE or VE (5min). Nine patients had postoperative complications including 1 grade II (blood transfusion) and 1 grade IIIb (vaginal bleeding after VE). None of our procedures were converted to open surgeries and no deaths were reported. For the recipients: 1.7% presented delayed graft function; their median GFR at 1 year was 61mL/min/1.73m².

CONCLUSION

RLDN in an expert center appears to be a safe technique. The advantages of the robot device in terms of ergonomy don't hamper the surgical outcomes. Donor, recipient and graft survivals seem comparable to the reported laparoscopic outcomes in the literature.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

[Robot-assisted Living Donor Nephrectomy - Technical Aspects and Initial Evidence]

Minimally invasive donor nephrectomy has become the standard procedure in most transplant centres over the past two decades and has contributed to a reduction in postoperative morbidity for the donor. Robot-assisted technology is an alternative to conventional (hand-assisted) laparoscopic technology and will find increasing use in the future. In this review article, we address technical aspects of robotic-assisted donor nephrectomy, in accordance with our own experience and will provide an overview of the currently available literature. Robot-assisted living kidney donation is a safe procedure with a very low postoperative complication rate. The procedure offers advantages over the open surgical technique with respect to the reduction in the postoperative need for analgesia and the duration of hospital stay, with longer operating times and warm ischemia times, but without a measurable effect on transplant function. The postoperative outcome parameters are comparable to those of the laparoscopic technique, indicating a further acceleration of postoperative convalescence. The advantages of robot-assisted technology, due to the better exposure options, are most relevant in patients with a high BMI and multiple renal arteries, as well as in right-sided nephrectomies in which a longer transplant artery can be obtained. Robot-assisted living kidney donation will play a major role in the future of transplant surgery and is a serious alternative to conventional laparoscopic technology.

Cost-effectiveness of four living-donor nephrectomy techniques from a hospital perspective

BACKGROUND

In Europe, transplantation centres use different nephrectomy techniques: open surgery, and standard, hand-assisted and robot-assisted laparoscopies. Few studies have analysed the disparity in costs and clinical outcomes between techniques. Since donors are healthy patients expecting minimum pain and fast recovery, this study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of four nephrectomy techniques focusing on early surgical outcomes, an essential in the donation act.

METHODS

A micro-costing approach was used to estimate the cost of implementation from a hospital perspective. Estimates took into account sterilization costs for multiple-use equipment, costs for purchasing single-use equipment, staff and analgesics. The study recruited donors in 20 centres in France. Quality of life by EuroQol-5D was assessed preoperatively, and 4 and 90 days post-operatively. Two effectiveness indicators were built: quality-of-life recovery and post-operative pain days averted (PPDA). The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02830568, on 10 June 2010.

RESULTS

A total of 264 donors were included; they underwent open surgery (n = 65), and standard (n = 65), hand-assisted (n = 65) and robot-assisted laparoscopies (n = 69). Use of the nephrectomy techniques differed greatly in cost of implementation and immediate post-operative outcomes but not in clinical outcomes at 90 days. At 4 days, hand-assisted laparoscopy provided the lowest cost per quality-of-life recovery unit of effectiveness (%) and PPDA (days) (€2056/40.1%/2.3 days, respectively). Robot-assisted laparoscopy was associated with the best post-operative outcomes but with the highest cost (€3430/59.1%/2.6 days).

CONCLUSION

Hand-assisted, standard and robot-assisted laparoscopies are cost-effective techniques compared with open surgery. Hand-assisted surgery is the most cost-effective procedure. Robot-assisted surgery requires more healthcare resource use but enables the best clinical outcome.

[The first 50 robot-assisted donor nephrectomies : Lessons learned]

Hintergrund

Die minimal-invasive Donornephrektomie (DN) ist inzwischen operativer Standard, bezüglich der Rolle von roboterassistierten Verfahren gibt es bisher keinen Konsens.

Fragestellung

Die ersten 50 transperitonealen roboterassistierten Donornephrektomien (RDN) einer urologischen Universitätsklinik in Deutschland wurden retrospektiv ausgewertet.

Material und Methoden

Patientencharakteristika, intra- und postoperative Parameter wurden erfasst und die Nierenfunktion in einem 5‑jährigen Follow-up ausgewertet. Signifikante Prädiktoren für die Nierenfunktion bei Entlassung und ein Jahr postoperativ wurden in einem multivariablen Regressionsmodell bestimmt.

Ergebnisse

Die RDN hat exzellente Ergebnisse mit niedriger Komplikationsrate, kurzer warmer (WIZ) und kalter Ischämiezeit (KIZ) sowie geringem Blutverlust und kurzer Patientenverweildauer. Die Seite der Nierenentnahme hat hierauf keine Auswirkungen. Nach RDN sind etwa 50 % der Spender formal niereninsuffizient, was aber zumeist ohne Relevanz ist, weil sich die Nierenfunktion der Spender im Follow-up nicht weiter verschlechtert. Die postoperative Nierenfunktion lässt sich bei der RDN mithilfe der präoperativen eGFR (errechnete glomeruläre Filtrationsrate) und dem Spenderalter sehr gut vorhersagen.

Schlussfolgerungen

Die robotische DN stellt eine sehr gute Alternative zu anderen minimal-invasiven Operationsverfahren dar, die von Beginn an exzellente operative Ergebnisse ermöglicht.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: surgical feasibility and technique

Background

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is currently accepted as the gold standard procedure for living donor nephrectomy. Robot-assisted LDN (RALDN), an evolving procedure, has recently shown potential to ultimately emerge as the preferred procedure. Here, we report our experience and the surgical technique followed for employing RALDN for living donation.

Methods

This retrospective study involved 56 consecutive patients who underwent RALDN between January 2015 and August 2018. Intraoperative and postoperative functional outcomes were analyzed and compared with the 45 patients who underwent hand-assisted LDN (HALDN) between May 2011 and December 2014.

Results

Mean procedure time for RALDN was 150 (range 90-210) min, and mean overall intraoperative blood loss was <100 (range 50-200) mL. Mean warm ischemic time recorded was 2 (range 1-5) min. Intraoperative complications, including blood transfusion or open conversion, did not occur in any patient.

Conclusions

The procedural results of RALDN were comparable or superior to HALDN. Our RALDN approach is safe and feasible, and the procedure appears to be significantly easier for the surgeon. We suggest that our findings be externally validated to reassure reproducibility of the measurement in a prospective evaluation.

Donor and Recipient Outcomes following Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review

Aims

We aimed to summarize available lines of evidence about intraoperative and postoperative donor outcomes following robotic-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (RALDN) as well as outcomes of graft and recipients.

Methods

A systematic review of PubMed/Medline, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Scopus databases was performed in May 2018. The following search terms were combined: nephrectomy, robotic, and living donor. We included full papers that met the following criteria: original research; English language; human studies; enrolling patients undergoing RALDN.

Results

Eighteen studies involving 910 patients were included in the final analysis. Mean overall operative and warm ischemia times ranged from 139 to 306 minutes and from 1.5 to 5.8 minutes, respectively. Mean estimated blood loss varied from 30 to 146 mL and the incidence of intraoperative complications ranged from 0% to 6.7%. Conversion rate varied from 0% to 5%. The mean hospital length of stay varied from 1 to 5.8 days and incidence of early postoperative complications varied from 0% to 15.7%. No donor mortality was observed. The incidence of delayed graft function was reported in 7 cases. The one- and 10-year graft loss rates were 1% and 22%, respectively.

Conclusions

Based on preliminary data, RALDN appears as a safe and effective procedure.

Living donor nephrectomy

OBJECTIVE

The Guidelines Project, an initiative of the Brazilian Medical Association, aims to combine information from the medical field in order to standardize producers to assist the reasoning and decision-making of doctors.

CONCLUSIONS

The information provided through this project must be assessed and criticized by the physician responsible for the conduct that will be adopted, depending on the conditions and the clinical status of each patient.

First Canadian experience with robotic laparoendoscopic single-site vs. standard laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy: A prospective comparative study

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to compare the outcomes of robotic laparoendoscopic single-site living donor nephrectomy (R-LESS LDN) vs. standard laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN).

METHODS

Between October 2013 and November 2015, 39 patients were allocated to either standard LLDN (n=25) or R-LESS LDN (n=14). Patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, analgesic requirement, visual analogue scale of pain at postoperative days 1, 3, 7, and 30, and a health-related quality of life and body image questionnaire were prospectively collected.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in demographics and intraoperative outcomes between the two cohorts. The R-LESS LDN cohort had lower analgesic requirement (p=0.002) and lower visual pain scores on days 1 and 3 (p=0.001). Additionally, body image and satisfaction scores in the R-LESS group were also superior compared to the LLDN cohort (p=0.008). There was no significant difference in the postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo system. Recipient graft functional outcomes were equivalent.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first evidence that R-LESS LDN is safe and associated with comparable surgical and early functional outcomes compared to LLDN, while pain, donor body image, and satisfaction scores were improved compared to LLDN.

Robotic Donor Nephrectomy: The Right Way Forward

Donor nephrectomy is an extremely challenging procedure. The stakes are high, as two lives-the donor and the recipient-depend on it. Robotic donor nephrectomy has an edge over a laparoscopic approach.

Laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To compare the perioperative outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) and pure LDN, as HALDN and LDN are the two most widely used techniques of DN to treat end-stage renal disease.

Methods

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we performed a literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane from 01/01/1995 to 31/12/2014. The primary outcome was conversion to an open procedure. Secondary outcomes were warm ischaemia time (WIT), operation time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, and length of stay (LOS). Data analysed were presented as odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), I², and P values. Subgroup analysis was performed.

Results

There were 24 studies included in the meta-analysis; three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one randomised pilot study, two prospective, and 18 retrospective cohort studies. There were no differences in conversion to an open procedure between the two techniques for both RCTs (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.06, 2.90; I² = 0%, P < 0.001) and cohort studies (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.63, 1.78; I² = 0%, P = 0.84). WIT was shorter for the HALDN (-41.79 s, 95% CI -71.85, -11.74; I² = 96%, P = 0.006), as was the OT (-26.32 min, 95% CI -40.67, -11.97; I² = 95%, P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in EBL, complications or LOS.

Conclusion

There is little statistical evidence to recommend one technique. HALDN is associated with a shorter WIT and OT. LDN has equal safety to HALDN. Further studies are required.

Robot-Assisted Transplant Surgery - Vision or Reality? A Comprehensive Review

Minimally invasive surgery is standard procedure for many operations. Further refinements include the introduction of robotic surgery which is still an emerging field especially in laparoscopic surgery. Since the successful introduction of the da Vinci Robotic Surgical System, the robotic approach in organ transplantation has become of great interest in both the live donor organ retrieval and the recipient operation. Robotic surgery for kidney, liver, and pancreas transplantation is feasible. Over 700 donor nephrectomies and 100 kidney transplantations have been performed already, and robotic surgery is standard in a small number of pioneer centers; however, larger series and most importantly randomized controlled trials for the highest evidence are needed. Longer warm ischemia time and higher costs limit these procedures at the moment.

Perioperative Events and Complications in Minimally Invasive Live Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy has become a fully implemented and accepted procedure. Donors have to be well educated about all risks and details during the informed consent process. For this to be successful, more information regarding short-term outcome is necessary.

METHODS

A literature search was performed; all studies discussing short-term complications after minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy were included. Outcomes evaluated were intraoperative and postoperative complications, conversions, operative and warm ischemia times, blood loss, length of hospital stay, pain score, convalescence, quality of life, and costs.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety articles were included in the systematic review, 41 in the meta-analysis. Conversion rate was 1.1%. Intraoperative complication rate was 2.3%, mainly bleeding (1.5%). Postoperative complications occurred in 7.3% of donors, including infectious complications (2.6%), of which mainly wound infection (1.6%) and bleeding (1.0%). Reported mortality rate was 0.01%. All minimally invasive techniques were comparable with regard to complication or conversion rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The used techniques for minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy are safe and associated with low complication rates and minimal risk of mortality. These data may be helpful to develop a standardized, donor-tailored informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy.

Laparoscopic vs open donor nephrectomy: Lessons learnt from single academic center experience

AIM

To compare laparoscopic and open living donor nephrectomy, based on the results from a single center during a decade.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of all living donor nephrectomies performed at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, between 1/1998 - 12/2009. Overall there were 490 living donors, with 279 undergoing laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN) and 211 undergoing open donor nephrectomy (OLDN). Demographic data, operating room time, the effect of the learning curve, the number of conversions from laparoscopic to open surgery, donor preoperative glomerular filtration rate and creatinine (Cr), donor and recipient postoperative Cr, delayed graft function and donor complications were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Overall there was no statistically significant difference between the LLDN and the OLDN groups regarding operating time, donor preoperative renal function, donor and recipient postoperative kidney function, delayed graft function or the incidence of major complications. When the last 100 laparoscopic cases were analyzed, there was a statistically significant difference regarding operating time in favor of the LLDN, pointing out the importance of the learning curve. Furthermore, another significant difference between the two groups was the decreased length of stay for the LLDN (2.87 d for LLDN vs 3.6 d for OLDN).

CONCLUSION

Recognizing the importance of the learning curve, this paper provides evidence that LLDN has a safety profile comparable to OLDN and decreased length of stay for the donor.

Robotic liver donor right hepatectomy: A pure, minimally invasive approach

Right hepatectomy for a living liver donor via a pure minimally invasive approach is a challenging procedure and only a few cases have been reported. Between May 2013 and August 2015, 13 patients underwent robotic living donor right hepatectomy in our institute, and 54 patients received open surgery. In this series, no conversion was conducted for robotic donor right hepatectomy. The 2 groups shared similar blood loss (169 versus 146 mL), complication rates (7.7% versus 9.3%), and recovery of donor liver function (peak alanine aminotransferase, 269 versus 252 IU/mL). The robotic group needed longer operation time (596 versus 383 minutes) but less postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (0.58 versus 0.84 ng/kg) and a shorter period before returning to work/school (52.9 versus 100.0 days) and sex (100.0 versus 156.0 days). For recipient outcomes regarding the donor procedure, the robotic group shared similar experiences in early allograft dysfunction, complications, and 1-year recipient liver function with the open group. With respect to documented benefits of minimally invasive left-sided liver donor procedure, the development of right donor hepatectomy is slow. In conclusion, with substantial improvements in patient recovery after the minimally invasive approach, the robotic platform would be a big step toward completing pure minimally invasive liver donor surgery. Liver Transplantation 22 1509-1518 2016 AASLD.

Historical perspectives in kidney transplantation: an updated review

The present state of success in kidney transplantation, including its benefits to patients with end-stage renal failure, was achieved through relentless research, both in experimental animal models and human volunteers. Kidney transplantation has evolved during the past century thanks to various milestones in surgical techniques, immunology, immunosuppressive drugs, expansion of donor sources, organ preservation, transplant against immunological barriers (ABO blood group-incompatible and positive crossmatch transplants), and research on induction of tolerance, xenotransplants, and stem cell technology. Despite significant improvements in graft and patient survival, several issues still must be addressed to reduce the growing number of patients with kidney failure waiting to receive organs. This article provides an up-to-date review of the milestones in the history of kidney transplantation and highlights strategies to resolve current problems faced by patients and the transplant community.

European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery

Following an extensive literature search and a consensus conference with subject matter experts the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Robotic surgery is still at its infancy, and there is a great potential in sophisticated electromechanical systems to perform complex surgical tasks when these systems evolve. 2. To date, in the vast majority of clinical settings, there is little or no advantage in using robotic systems in general surgery in terms of clinical outcome. Dedicated parameters should be addressed, and high quality research should focus on quality of care instead of routine parameters, where a clear advantage is not to be expected. 3. Preliminary data demonstrates that robotic system have a clinical benefit in performing complex procedures in confined spaces, especially in those that are located in unfavorable anatomical locations. 4. There is a severe lack of high quality data on robotic surgery, and there is a great need for rigorously controlled, unbiased clinical trials. These trials should be urged to address the cost-effectiveness issues as well. 5. Specific areas of research should include complex hepatobiliary surgery, surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, revisional surgery in bariatric and upper GI surgery, surgery for large adrenal masses, and rectal surgery. All these fields show some potential for a true benefit of using current robotic systems. 6. Robotic surgery requires a specific set of skills, and needs to be trained using a dedicated, structured training program that addresses the specific knowledge, safety issues and skills essential to perform this type of surgery safely and with good outcomes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding professional organizations, not the industry, to define the training and credentialing of robotic basic skills and specific procedures. 7. Due to the special economic environment in which robotic surgery is currently employed special care should be taken in the decision making process when deciding on the purchase, use and training of robotic systems in general surgery. 8. Professional organizations in the sub-specialties of general surgery should review these statements and issue detailed, specialty-specific guidelines on the use of specific robotic surgery procedures in addition to outlining the advanced robotic surgery training required to safely perform such procedures.

Minimally invasive donor nephrectomy: innovations

From open surgery to laparoscopic surgery, there has been an evolution in the surgical technique for live donor nephrectomy which goes beyond patient comfort. As a unique operation where the margin for error is nearly nil, and where the patient is essentially harmed for an altruistic goal, ensuring the best possible result is vital. Additionally, as the morbidity of the operation decreases, there is a theoretical increase in the donor pool. In this review, the latest techniques for minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy are covered, including new approaches such as laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, natural orifice surgery, and new tools such as robotics.

Robotic renal surgery: The future or a passing curiosity?

The development, advancement and clinical integration of robotic technology in surgery continue at a staggering pace. In no other discipline has this rapid evolution occurred to a greater degree than in urology. Although radical prostatectomy has grown to become the prototypical application for the robot, the role of the robot in renal surgery remains controversial. Herein we review the literature on robotic renal surgery. A comprehensive PubMed literature search was performed to identify all published reports relating to robotic renal surgery. All clinically related articles involving human participants were critically appraised in this review. Fifty-one clinical articles were included, encompassing robot-assisted pyeloplasty, nephrectomy, nephroureterectomy, living-donor nephrectomy and partial nephrectomy. Feasibility has been shown for each of these procedures. Robot-assisted techniques have been described for almost all renal-related procedures. However, the intersect between feasibility and necessity as it pertains to robotic renal surgery has yet to be defined. Also, the high cost of surgical robotic technology mandates critical appraisal before adoption, especially in a publicly funded health care system, such as the one present in Canada.

[Surgical aspects of living donor nephrectomy]

CONTEXT

Living donor renal transplant surgery has evolved from the classical nephrectomy by lumbotomy to less invasive surgery, the laparoscopic and robotic nephrectomy currently being the most important. It is important to know the available evidence on whether nephrectomy in patients with multiple arteries, right kidney and in obese patients can be performed safely when there is a correct indication.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a review of the different surgical techniques in living donor nephrectomy, adapted to the current surgical evidence and other aspects related to the indication.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was made in PubMed (1997-2011). This included previous reviews randomized controlled clinical studies, cohort studies, and meta-analyses of this surgical aspects of living donor nephrectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is sufficient evidence to consider living donor laparoscopic nephrectomy as the technique of choice, although the role of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic technique is still not totally clear. Open surgery techniques using mini-incision are an acceptable alternative for the sites that have not yet implemented laparoscopic surgery. Right kidney nephrectomy, of those cases that present multiple pedicles and in obese donors, is justified in selected cases.

Ablative and reconstructive robotic-assisted laparoscopic renal surgery

INTRODUCTION

The increasing role of robotic technology to facilitate surgical procedures has attracted much attention from surgeons and patients alike. In particular, the dramatic increase in the number of laparoscopic radical prostatectomies performed using the da Vinci surgical system has led to interest in using this technology for other procedures. We have evaluated our own experience performing ablative and reconstructive laparoscopic renal surgery using the da Vinci system to determine its potential role.

AIMS

To review our experience of robotic-assisted laparoscopic procedures of the upper urinary tract.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our da Vinci system was installed in June 2004. A prospective database has been maintained concerning all patients and procedures performed from that time. Procedures involving the upper urinary tract were identified and the data was examined. This included patient demographics, operative time, blood loss, hospital stay and patient outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty-six robotic procedures involved the upper urinary tract. Of these, two had to be converted to conventional laparoscopic surgery because of da Vinci mechanical failure. Robotic-assisted procedures included pyeloplasty (n = 15), simple nephrectomy (n = 2), radical nephrectomy (n = 1), nephroureterectomy (n = 2), and live donor nephrectomy (n = 4). The mean operative time was 215 min. The anastomotic time for the pyeloplasties averaged 47 min. The mean blood loss was 75 ml. There were no conversions to open surgery. The complication rate was 8.7%. Postoperative stay averaged 2.9 days.

CONCLUSION

The da Vinci surgical system may be safely used to assist in the performance of laparoscopic renal surgery.

[Nephrectomy, donor nephrectomy, and partial kidney resection: indications for robot-assisted renal surgery]

Laparoscopic renal surgery in experienced hands is an alternative to open surgery, although the technical difficulty of, for example, intracorporeal suturing and concerns over warm ischemia time for partial nephrectomy are limitations. Previous work has demonstrated that suturing with the robotic da Vinci system is easier compared with laparoscopy. The purpose of this report was to evaluate the feasibility of robot-assisted da Vinci renal surgery. In our study, the learning curve, complication rate, and operative time were short and the intraoperative technical movements were intuitive with the da Vinci Surgical System. In our opinion, robot-assisted surgery will allow urologists to perform complex procedures with great precision, confidence, and excellent results in renal surgery.

Robotic approaches to renal cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery has had considerable impact on the management of localized prostate cancer. The role of robot assistance in laparoscopic renal surgery is less well defined, however.

RECENT FINDINGS

There have been few recently published papers regarding the robotic approach to management of renal cancer.

SUMMARY

Few clear benefits have been demonstrated for robotic-assisted over the conventional laparoscopic approach for the management of renal cancer.