Comparison of perioperative, renal and oncologic outcomes in robotic-assisted versus open partial nephrectomy

Comparing robotic and open partial nephrectomy under the prism of surgical precision: a meta-analysis of the average blood loss rate as a novel variable

Exploration of surgical precision in robotic procedures is extensive, yet lacks a unified framework for comparability. This study examines tissue handling precision by comparing the per-minute blood loss rate between robotic and open partial nephrectomy. A literature search from August 2022 to June 2024 identified 43 relevant studies providing data on estimated blood loss and procedure duration. The expected values and standard errors of these variables were used to compute the per-minute blood loss rate (Q). Meta-analytical methods estimated pooled and subgroup-level mean differences, favoring robotic surgery (MDQ = - 1.043 ml/min, CI95% = [- 1.338; - 0.747]). Subgroup analyses by publication year, patient matching, referral center count, and ROBINS-I status consistently supported this advantage. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the above benefit in studies with increased accuracy in reported results (MDQ = - 0.957 ml/min, CI95% = [- 1.269; - 0.646]), low risk of bias involving matched comparisons (MDQ = - 0.563 ml/min, CI95% = [- 0.716; - 0.410]), large sample sizes and increased statistical power (MDQ = - 0.780 ml/min, CI95% = [- 1.134; - 0.425]), and multicenter analyses with patient matching (MDQ = - 0.481 ml/min, CI95% = [- 0.698; - 0.263]). The subsequent analysis of correlation between the original variables suggested a slight reduction in the robotic advantage when the latter were proportionally related. Multilevel meta-regression at both temporal and qualitative scales consistently indicated a comparative benefit of the robotic approach. Potentially, lower per-minute blood loss compared to open surgery suggests that robotic partial nephrectomy demonstrates enhanced precision in tissue handling.

The Transabdominal Lumbar Approach (TALA) for Robotic Renal Surgery-A Retrospective Single-Center Comparative Study and Step-by-Step Description of a Novel Approach

The transperitoneal approach (TP) and the retroperitoneal approach (RP) are two common methods for performing nephrectomy or partial nephrectomy. However, both approaches face difficulties, such as trocar placement and limited working space (RP). TP is impaired in the case of dorsal tumors and dissection of the renal artery can be challenging due to the anatomic localization dorsally to the renal vein. A hybrid approach that combines both methods has been previously reported in a case series, but not evaluated systematically. This study proposes a modified hybrid approach, which we call the transabdominal lumbar approach (TALA), involving late robotic docking after elaborating the retroperitoneum using conventional laparoscopy. The study compares the last 20 consecutive patients who underwent RP and the last 20 patients who underwent TALA at our institution. The investigated variables include operative time and amount of blood loss, hospitalization duration, postoperative analgesia requirement, and postoperative complications. The study found no significant difference in operative time, blood loss, ischemia time, or hospital stay between the two groups. The TALA group had fewer complications regarding Clavien-Dindo category 3, but one complication of category 4. In Conclusion, TALA is a safe and promising approach that combines the advantages of RP and TP.

[Robot-assisted surgery for renal cell carcinoma - today a standard?]

Twenty years have passed since the first reports on robot-assisted kidney tumor surgery in 2001. However, robotic surgery has not spread to all German urologic departments yet. Hence, one has to question whether robot-assisted kidney tumor surgery can be considered a standard today. Until now, no prospective randomized controlled trials have compared robot-assisted radical nephrectomy with the open or laparoscopic approach. Regardless, laparoscopy and robotics both have proven better perioperative and comparable oncological outcomes than with open nephrectomy. In direct comparison, robot-assisted nephrectomy has no additional benefits over the laparoscopic approach and is less cost-effective. However, reports on robot-assisted level III or IV vena cava tumor thrombectomies illustrate that robotic surgery can be superior to the laparoscopic approach in highly complex interventions. Likewise, no prospective randomized controlled trials have analyzed robot-assisted partial nephrectomy yet. When conducted by experienced surgeons, robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomies can also have lower morbidity compared to the open approach. No consensus has been reached when directly comparing robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. However, evidence is increasing that robot-assisted partial nephrectomy can offer additional benefits, especially for the treatment of highly complex endophytic renal tumors. Thereof, head-to-head comparisons are often impacted by patient- and tumor-related factors, as well as the learning curve of the surgeon, bed-side assistant and the annual caseload of the department. Hence, one has to conclude that robot-assisted kidney tumor surgery has evolved into a standard procedure with good results. The perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted surgery are superior to the open technique at a comparable oncological follow-up. Even if robot-assisted interventions are often more expensive than laparoscopic surgery due to higher costs of acquisition, robotics have the potential to gain superior results especially in very complex tumor surgery. Due to expiring patent protections, new manufacturers and the development of new technologies, the market of robotic surgery will most likely undergo significant changes and its costs will probably decrease within the next years.

Outcomes in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for imperative vs elective indications

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare peri-operative outcomes of patients undergoing robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for imperative vs elective indications.

PATIENT AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a multinational database of 3802 adults who underwent RAPN for elective and imperative indications. Laparoscopic or open partial nephrectomy (PN) were excluded. Baseline data for age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anaesthesiologists score and PADUA score were examined. Patients undergoing RAPN for an imperative indication were matched to those having surgery for an elective indication using propensity scores in a 1:3 ratio. Primary outcomes included organ ischaemic time, operating time, estimated blood loss (EBL), rate of blood transfusions, Clavien-Dindo complications, conversion to radical nephrectomy (RN) and positive surgical margin (PSM) status.

RESULTS

After propensity-score matching for baseline variables, a total of 304 patients (76 imperative vs 228 elective indications) were included in the final analysis. No significant differences were found between groups for ischaemia time (19.9 vs 19.8 min; P = 0.94), operating time (186 vs 180 min; P = 0.55), EBL (217 vs 190 mL; P = 0.43), rate of blood transfusions (2.7% vs 3.7%; P = 0.51), or Clavien-Dindo complications (P = 0.31). A 38.6% (SD 47.9) decrease in Day-1 postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate was observed in the imperative indication group and an 11.3% (SD 45.1) decrease was observed in the elective indication group (P < 0.005). There were no recorded cases of permanent or temporary dialysis. There were no conversions to RN in the imperative group, and seven conversions (5.6%) in the elective group (P = 0.69). PSMs were seen in 1.4% (1/76) of the imperative group and in 3.3% of the elective group (7/228; P = 0.69).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that RAPN is feasible and safe for imperative indications and demonstrates similar outcomes to those achieved for elective indications.

A 25 year perspective on the evolution and advances in an understanding of the biology, evaluation and treatment of kidney cancer

The diagnosis, evaluation and management of patients with renal cell carcinoma has transformed in the 21st century. Utilizing biological discoveries and technological advances, the field has moved from blunt surgical and largely ineffective medical treatments, to nuanced and fine-tuned approaches based on biology, extent of disease and patient preferences. In this review we will summarize the last 25 years of progress in kidney cancer.

Contemporary Perioperative Morbidity and Mortality Rates of Minimally Invasive vs Open Partial Nephrectomy in Obese Patients with Kidney Cancer

Aims: To compare early postoperative morbidity and mortality rates in obese patients (body mass index ≥30 kg/m²) who underwent minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) vs open partial nephrectomy (OPN), utilizing the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Materials and Methods: The NSQIP database was queried to identify obese patients who underwent either MIPN or OPN between 2008 and 2016. Patient demographics, comorbidities, operative time (OT), length of stay (LOS), and 30-day postoperative complications, readmissions, and mortality rates were recorded and compared between the two groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to determine the adjusted odds of early postoperative complications in MIPN vs OPN. Results: A total of 6041 obese MIPN patients and 3064 obese OPN patients were identified. Mean OT (minutes ± standard deviation) was longer for MIPN vs OPN (197.2 ± 71.0 vs 189.6 ± 82.4, p < 0.001), while mean LOS (3.8 ± 2.8 days vs 5.8 ± 3.5 days, p < 0.001) and 30-day complications (8.5% vs 19.8%, p < 0.001) were lower. No difference in 30-day postoperative mortality rates between MIPN (0.4%) and OPN (0.5%) was observed (p = 0.426). In the adjusted analysis, the odds of any complication within 30 days in the MIPN group were 61% lower, blood transfusion 73% lower, pneumonia 38% lower, sepsis 70% lower, acute renal failure 64% lower, superficial surgical site infection 40% lower, and reoperation 47% lower, compared with OPN patients. Conclusions: When compared with OPN in obese patients, the likelihood of 30-day postoperative morbidity was significantly lower in MIPN patients. However, the odds of 30-day mortality rates were similar between the groups.

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.