A multicentre matched-pair analysis comparing robot-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.

Open versus robotic partial nephrectomy in obese patients: a multi-institutional propensity score-matched analysis (UroCCR 43-Robese study)

INTRODUCTION

There is limited evidence on the outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN) in obese patients (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). In this study, we aimed to compare perioperative and oncological outcomes of RPN and OPN.

METHODS

We relied on data from patients who underwent PN from 2009 to 2017 at 16 departments of urology participating in the UroCCR network, which were collected prospectively. In an effort to adjust for potential confounders, a propensity-score matching was performed. Perioperative outcomes were compared between OPN and RPN patients. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

Overall, 1277 obese patients (932 robotic and 345 open were included. After propensity score matching, 166 OPN and 166 RPN individuals were considered for the study purposes; no statistically significant difference among baseline demographic or tumor-specific characteristics was present. A higher overall complication rate and major complications rate were recorded in the OPN group (37 vs. 25%, p = 0.01 and 21 vs. 10%, p = 0.007; respectively). The length of stay was also significantly longer in the OPN group, before and after propensity-score matching (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in Warm ischemia time (p = 0.66), absolute change in eGFR (p = 0.45) and positive surgical margins (p = 0.12). At a median postoperative follow-up period of 24 (8-40) months, DFS and OS were similar in the two groups (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, RPN was associated with better perioperative outcomes (improvement of major complications rate and LOS) than OPN. The oncological outcomes were found to be similar between the two approaches.

Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial of Robot-assisted Versus Conventional Open Partial Nephrectomy: The ROBOCOP II Study

BACKGROUND

There is no evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility of trial recruitment and to compare surgical outcomes between RAPN and OPN.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

ROBOCOP II was designed as single-center, open-label, feasibility RCT. Patients with suspected localized renal cell carcinoma referred for PN were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to either RAPN or OPN.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was the feasibility of recruitment, assessed as the accrual rate. Secondary outcomes included perioperative and postoperative data. Data were analyzed descriptively in a modified intention-to-treat population consisting of randomized patients who underwent surgery.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 50 patients underwent RAPN or OPN (accrual rate 65%). In comparison to OPN, RAPN had lower blood loss (OPN 361 ml, standard deviation [SD] 238; RAPN 149 ml, SD 122; difference 212 ml, 95% confidence interval [CI] 105-320; p < 0.001), less need for opioids (OPN 46%; RAPN 16%; difference 30%, 95% CI 5-54; p = 0.024), and fewer complications according to the mean Comprehensive Complication Index (OPN 14, SD 16; RAPN 5, SD 15; difference 9, 95% CI 0-18; p = 0.008). OPN has a shorter operative time (OPN 112 min, SD 29; RAPN 130 min, SD 32; difference -18 min, 95% CI -35 to -1; p = 0.046) and warm ischemia time (OPN 8.7 min, SD 7.1; RAPN 15.4 min, SD 7.0; difference 6.7 min, 95% CI -10.7 to -2.7; p = 0.001). There were no differences between RAPN and OPN regarding postoperative kidney function.

CONCLUSIONS

This first RCT comparing OPN and RAPN met the primary outcome of the feasibility of recruitment; however, the window for future RCTs is closing. Each approach has advantages over the other, and both remain safe and effective options.

PATIENT SUMMARY

For patients with a kidney tumor, open surgery and robot-assisted keyhole surgery are both feasible and safe approaches for partial removal of the affected kidney. Each approach has known advantages. Long-term follow-up will explore differences in quality of life and cancer control 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.

Comparison of peri- and intraoperative outcomes of open vs robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the gold standard surgical treatment for resectable renal cell carcinoma (RCC) tumors. However, the decision whether a robotic (RAPN) or open PN (OPN) approach is chosen is often based on the surgeon's individual experience and preference. To overcome the inherent selection bias when comparing peri- and postoperative outcomes of RAPN vs. OPN, a strict statistical methodology is needed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We relied on an institutional tertiary-care database to identify RCC patients treated with RAPN and OPN between January 2003 and January 2021. Study endpoints were estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications, and trifecta. In the first step of analyses, descriptive statistics and multivariable regression models (MVA) were applied. In the second step of analyses, to validate initial findings, MVA were applied after 2:1 propensity-score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Of 615 RCC patients, 481 (78%) underwent OPN vs 134 (22%) RAPN. RAPN patients were younger and presented with a smaller tumor diameter and lower RENAL-Score sum, respectively. Median EBL was comparable, whereas LOS was shorter in RAPN vs. OPN. Both intraoperative (27 vs 6%) and Clavien-Dindo > 2 complications (11 vs 3%) were higher in OPN (both < 0.05), whereas achievement of trifecta was higher in RAPN (65 vs 54%; p = 0.028). In MVA, RAPN was a significant predictor for shorter LOS, lower rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications as well as higher trifecta rates. After 2:1 PSM with subsequent MVA, RAPN remained a statistical and clinical predictor for lower rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications and higher rates of trifecta achievement but not LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in baseline and outcome characteristics exist between RAPN vs. OPN, probably due to selection bias. However, after applying two sets of statistical analyses, RAPN seems to be associated with more favorable outcomes regarding complications and trifecta rates.

Purely Off-Clamp Partial Nephrectomy: Robotic Approach Better than Open Using a Pentafecta Outcome with Propensity Score Matching

Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the gold standard treatment for localized renal masses. Robot-assisted PN (RAPN) has overcome laparoscopy’s technical limitations, greatly expanding the indications of minimally invasive PN, which is dominated by renal artery clamping in almost all published series. We compared off-clamp RAPN (OFFC-RAPN) with the open approach (OFFC-OPN) using propensity score (PS) matching. A favourable pentafecta outcome was defined as a combination of no positive surgical margins (PSM), no complications of Clavien−Dindo (CD) grade ≥ 3, post-operative eGFR loss <10%, length of hospital stay (LOS) ≤ 5 days and estimated blood loss (EBL) < 200 mL. A total of 340 consecutive patients were included. The PS-matched cohort included 142 patients: 71 matched pairs well-balanced for all covariates. The OFFC-RAPN group showed significantly shorter operative time (149.8 vs. 173.9 min, p = 0.003), lower EBL (182.1 vs. 329.3 mL, p = 0.001), and shorter LOS (5.8 vs. 6.9 days, p = 0.02), with a higher proportion of patients with LOS ≤ 5 days (57.7% vs. 23.9%, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found for PSM rate (2.8% vs. 8.4%, p = 0.27), CD > 2 complication rate (4.2% vs. 2.8%, p = 1.00) and mean ± SD eGFR change (−0.06 ± 0.3 vs. −0.8 ± 0.3, p = 0.5). Pentafecta was achieved in 56.3% and 21.1% in the OFFC-RAPN and OFFC-OPN series, respectively (p < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, surgical approach and BMI proved to be independent predictors of achieving pentafecta. After adjusting for potential treatment selection bias, OFFC-RAPN outperformed OFFC-OPN for important peri-operative outcomes, without compromising oncological and functional safety.

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.

Perioperative and long-term functional outcomes of robot-assisted versus open partial nephrectomy: A single-center retrospective study of a Japanese cohort

Objective

This study aimed to compare the perioperative and long-term functional outcomes between robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN) in Japanese patients.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 242 patients who underwent either RAPN or OPN between 2007 and 2017 at our hospital. Propensity score matching was carried out between the two groups at a ratio of 1:1. Perioperative outcomes and postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) were compared at one and three years of follow-up.

Results

After propensity score matching, we evaluated 39 patients from each group. The ischemia duration of the RAPN group was significantly shorter than that of the OPN group (18 vs. 24, p < 0.001). Moreover, the estimated blood loss (EBL) was significantly lower in the RAPN group than in the OPN group (50 vs. 174, p < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in the postoperative eGFR between the two groups at one or three years of follow-up (OPN 54.8 vs. RAPN 61.2, p = 0.109, and OPN 54.8 vs. RAPN 55.5, p = 0.262, respectively).

Conclusion

RAPN resulted in shorter ischemia durations and lower rates of EBL than did OPN; however, no differences in long-term renal function were observed between RAPN and OPN in our propensity-score matched Japanese cohort.

•

This study aimed to compare the perioperative and long-term functional outcomes of RAPN and OPN in Japanese patients.

•

RAPN resulted in shorter ischemia durations and lower rates of estimated blood loss than OPN.

•

No differences in long-term renal function were observed between RAPN and OPN.

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.

The Influence of Prior Abdominal Surgery on Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy

Background

We evaluated the influence of prior abdominal surgery on perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in initial Japanese series.

Methods

We reviewed patients with small renal tumors who underwent robot-assisted partial nephrectomy from October 2011 to September 2020 at our institution. Patients with prior abdominal surgery were compared with those without prior surgery based on perioperative outcomes. The chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for statistical analyses of variables.

Results

Of 156 patients who underwent robot-assisted partial nephrectomy, 90 (58%) had no prior abdominal surgery, whereas 66 patients (42%) underwent prior abdominal surgery. No significant differences in perioperative outcomes were observed between with and without prior abdominal surgery groups. In transperitoneal approach robot-assisted partial nephrectomy, 31 patients (80.4%) had prior abdominal surgery. Trocar insertion time in the with prior abdominal surgery group took longer than the without prior abdominal surgery group (32 vs. 28.5 min, P = 0.031). No significant difference was observed in the conversion rate between the two groups (P = 0.556).

Conclusion

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy appears to be a safe approach for patients with prior abdominal surgery. In transperitoneal approach robot-assisted partial nephrectomy with prior abdominal surgery, trocar insertion time was longer, but no significant differences were found in other outcomes. Transperitoneal approach robot-assisted partial nephrectomy is thus considered a safe procedure for patients with prior abdominal surgery.

Robotic-Assisted Versus Conventional Open Partial Nephrectomy (Robocop): A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of 249 Patients

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare open partial nephrectomy (OPN) and robotic-assisted PN (RAPN) based on a propensity score-matched sample and to test the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) as an end point for complications.

METHODS

Patients undergoing PN from 2010 to 2018 at a university care center were included. OPN and RAPN cases were matched in a 2:1 ratio using propensity score-matching with age, gender, BMI, RENAL score, and tumor size as confounders. The primary end point was complications measured with the CCI as continuous score (0-100, 100 indicating death).

RESULTS

Data of 570 patients were available. After matching, both cohorts (OPN = 166; RAPN = 83) showed no baseline differences. For the primary end point, CCI, RAPN was superior (RAPN 2.6 ± 7.9 vs. OPN 8.7 ± 13.9; p < 0.001). Additionally, RAPN was superior for length of stay (RAPN 6.5 ± 4.0 vs. OPN 7.4 ± 3.5 days; p < 0.001), hemoglobin drop (RAPN 2.8 ± 1.4 vs. OPN 3.8 ± 1.6 g/dL; p < 0.001), and drop of glomerular filtration rate (RAPN 11.4 ± 14.2 vs. OPN 19.5 ± 14.3 mL/min; p < 0.001). OPN had shorter operating times (RAPN 157 ± 43 vs. OPN 143 ± 45 min; p = 0.014) and less ischemia (RAPN 13% vs. OPN 28%; p = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

RAPN provides superior short-term results regarding overall complications without compromising renal function for small and less complex tumors. However, OPN remains an important option for more complex and larger tumors.

Nephron sparing surgery for the treatment of renal masses: A single center experience

BACKGROUND

Nowadays, the partial nephrectomy (PN) not only is considered oncological equivalent to radical nephrectomy as renal tumor's treatment, but has also give benefits in quality of life and overall survival of patients.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of the present study was to report our single center experience with NSS, predominantly performed by a robot assisted access, in a high-volume center with large experience with minimally invasive surgery.

METHODS

Between June 2018 and January 2020, a consecutive series of 109 patients (pts) with a renal mass suspicious of renal cell carcinoma, feasible of NSS, detected by ultrasound and abdominal computed tomography (CT), underwent NSS and they were included in a prospectively maintained institutional database. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics, perioperative and postoperative parameters, pathological data were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean clinical maximum CT tumor diameter was 37.3 ± 19.6 mm (median 31.5 mm; interquartile range 25-45 mm). PADUA risk was low in 54 pts (49.5%), intermediate in 48 pts (44.0%), high in seven pts (6.4%). The clinical T stage was mostly pT1a (70.6%). NSS was performed by open surgery in nine pts (8.3%), laparoscopy in one pts (0.9%) and was robot assisted in 99 pts (90.8%). A simple enucleation was performed in 67 pts (61.5%), an enucleoresection was performed in 37 pts (33.9%) and a partial nephrectomy was performed in five pts (4.6%). Warm ischemia was performed in 41 pts (37.6%), with a mean warm ischemia time of 5.1 ± 7.1 min. The mean pathological maximum tumor diameter was 35.5 ± 21.7 mm (median 30 mm; interquartile range 22-40 mm). Overall PSM rate was 11.9% (13 pts). In 78% of cases no complication was recorded. No major complications (grade III-IV-V) were noted.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that NSS is a safe, reproducible and minimally invasive approach as treatment of small renal masses. NSS permits to achieve a fine oncological management without any worsening of renal function.

Is partial nephrectomy safe and effective in the setting of frail comorbid patients affected by renal cell carcinoma? Insights from the RECORD 2 multicentre prospective study

BACKGROUND

To investigate the perioperative and morbidity outcomes after partial nephrectomy (PN) in patients with short life expectancy (SLE) (≥95% 10-year expected mortality (10y-EM)), to assess the main predictors of outcomes in this population and to compare these results with those of a group at the opposite upper range with long LE (LLE, ≤5% 10y-EM) relying on a multicenter Italian prospective registry of kidney surgery (the RECORD 2 project).

METHODS

Clinical data of 4,325 patients undergone kidney surgery were collected at 26 urological Italian Centers from 2013 to 2016. SLE was defined as a ≥95% 10y-EM (assessed using the age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index [CCI]). A multivariable logistic regression for overall postoperative complications, acute kidney injury (AKI), positive surgical margins (SM) and ∆ estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥25% at 2 years from surgery was performed in patients with SLE including clinically relevant variables. Adjusted outcomes reported as mean (SD) of the 2 groups were generated using separate multivariable logistic regression models and compared.

RESULTS

Overall, 559 patients with SLE were selected. Patients had an ASA score ≥3 in 58.4% of cases. A clinical T1a, T1b, and T2 stage was found in 412 (74.5%), 124 (22.4%), and 17 (3.1%) patients. The median PADUA score was 7 (6-8). Surgical and medical postoperative complication rates were registered in 14.8% and 6% cases. Postoperative AKI was reported in 27.3% cases, positive surgical margins (PSM) in 9.3% cases. In this subgroup of patients, ASA score, cerebrovascular disease, surgery in low volume centers, and open surgery were independent predictors of overall complications. ASA and PADUA scores, renal clamping, resection technique and lower eGFR at baseline were independent predictors of AKI. PADUA score, open approach and resection technique were independent predictors of PSM. Cardiovascular disease, hilar clamping, and resection technique were independent predictors of eGFR decrease >25% at 2 years from surgery. Patients with SLE were compared with those with LLE (n = 302). All analyzed parameters at baseline were significantly different among the groups with the exception of cancer laterality. After adjusting for several clinical variables, the SLE group had a significantly higher risk rate of adjusted overall postoperative complication rate compared to the LLE group (20.6% ± 0.36 vs. 9.9% ± 0.65, P < 0.0001), while the overall intraoperative complications (4.1% ±0.13 vs. 2.3% ± 0.23), overall postoperative major complications (3.8% ± 0.09 vs. 1.9% ± 0.14) adjusted AKI (24.2% ± 0.37 vs. 22.6% ± 0.92), positive surgical margins (8% ± 0.22 vs. 6.4% ± 0.49), and 2-year RF loss (13.4% ± 0.17 vs. 12.4% ± 0.74).

CONCLUSION

In selected patients with SLE, PN is feasible with an acceptable safety profile that is overall comparable to patients with no LE limitations. While a robotic approach and surgery performed in high volume centers could reduce the risk of complications, an off-clamp approach and a SE surgical technique may decrease the risk of postoperative AKI and of longer term eGFR decrease.

Early Single-Center Experience with Robotic Partial Nephrectomy Using the da Vinci Xi: Comparative Assessment with Conventional Open Partial Nephrectomy

Background

The objective of this study was to evaluate our experience with robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) in comparison with conventional open partial nephrectomy (OPN).

Patients and Methods

This study included 37 and 50 patients undergoing OPN and RAPN for small renal masses, respectively. A single surgeon performed RAPN for all 50 cases using the da Vinci Xi. Trifecta was defined as satisfying all of the following 3 criteria: ischemic time of ≤ 25 minutes, negative surgical margin and no major postoperative complications.

Results

After adjusting patient variables by 1:1 propensity-score matching, 37 patients were included in each group, and no significant differences in major clinicopathological characteristics were noted between these 2 groups. RAPN was significantly superior to OPN with respect to operative time, estimated blood loss and postoperative length of hospital stay. The rate of trifecta achievement was significantly higher in the RAPN group than in the OPN group (91.9 vs. 62.2%). Furthermore, the operative procedure and R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score were found to be independently associated with trifecta outcome by multivariate analysis of the entire cohort.

Conclusions

Although this is our early experience with 50 initial cases, RAPN using the da Vinci Xi resulted in more favorable perioperative outcomes than OPN.

The ERUS Curriculum for Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy: Structure Definition and Pilot Clinical Validation

BACKGROUND

No validated training program for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) exists.

OBJECTIVE

To define the structure and provide a pilot clinical validation of a curriculum for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A modified Delphi consensus methodology involving 27 experts defined curriculum structure. One trainee completed the curriculum under the mentorship of an expert. A total of 40 patients treated with curriculum RAPN (cRAPN) were compared with 160 patients treated with standard of care (sRAPN).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

To define curriculum structure, consensus was defined as ≥90% expert agreement. To investigate curriculum safety, perioperative morbidity, renal function, and pathologic outcomes were evaluated. To investigate curriculum efficacy, RAPN steps and modules attempted and completed by the trainee were evaluated. Propensity score matching identified comparable cRAPN and sRAPN cases. Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test, and linear regression were used to investigate the impact of the curriculum on patient's outcome and the impact of trainee's experience on surgical independence.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Consensus-based key statements defined curriculum structure. No difference was recorded between cRAPN and sRAPN with respect to intraoperative or overall and grade-specific postoperative complications, blood loss, ischemia time, postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate, and positive surgical margins (all p>0.05). Conversely, operative time was longer after cRAPN (p<0.0001). The trainee completed all phases of the curriculum and the trainee's experience was associated with more steps attempted/completed and increasing complexity of module attempted/completed (all p<0.0001). The limitations of the study are the enrolment of a single trainee at a single institution and the small sample size. Accordingly, the large confidence intervals observed cannot exclude inferior outcomes in case of cRAPN and further study is required to confirm safety.

CONCLUSIONS

The European Association of Urology (EAU) Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) curriculum for RAPN can protect patients from suboptimal outcome during the learning curve of the surgeon and can aid surgeons willing to start an RAPN program.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Patients should be aware that structured training programs can reduce the risk of suboptimal outcome due to the learning curve of the surgeon.

90-Day readmission after radical prostatectomy-a prospective comparison between robot-assisted and open surgery

Purpose: All types of surgery are associated with complications. The debate is ongoing whether robot-assisted radical prostatectomy can lower this risk compared to open surgery. The objective of the present study was to evaluate post-operative adverse events leading to readmissions, using clinical records to classify these adverse events systematically. Materials and methods: A prospective controlled trial of men who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic (RALP) or retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) at 14 departments of Urology (LAPPRO) between 2008 and 2011. Data on all readmissions within 3 months of surgery were collected from the Patient registry, Swedish Board of Health and Welfare. For each readmission the highest Clavien-Dindo grade was listed. Results: A total of 4003 patients were included in the LAPPRO trial and, after applying exclusion criteria, 3706 patients remained for analyses. The results showed no statistically significant difference in the overall readmission rates (8.1 vs. 7.1%) or readmission due to major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3b, 1.7 vs. 1.9%) between RALP and RRP within 90 days after surgery. Patients subjected to lymph-node dissection (LND) had twice the risk for readmission as men not undergoing LND, irrespective RALP or RRP technique. Blood transfusion was significantly more frequent during and within 30 days of RRP surgery (16 vs. 4%). Abdominal symptoms were more common after RALP. Conclusions: There is a substantial risk for hospital readmission after prostate-cancer surgery, regardless of technique; although major complications are rare. Regardless of surgical technique, attention should be focused on specific types of complications.

Surgical Approach Does Not Impact Margin Status After Partial Nephrectomy for Large Renal Masses

PURPOSE

While surgical approach has recently been associated with positive surgical margin (PSM) after partial nephrectomy (PN) for small (<4 cm) renal masses, its impact on margin status for large (>4 cm) masses is unclear. We sought to evaluate the relationship between margin and surgical approach in patients undergoing PN for large renal masses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we identified patients undergoing PN for pathological T1b and T2a renal-cell carcinoma diagnosed from 2010 to 2013. Conversions to open surgery were also included in our analysis. The primary outcome was surgical margin status. Multivariable regression modeling was performed to identify factors associated with PSM. A propensity score matching analysis was then performed to evaluate the impact of margin status on overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Of the 7495 patients undergoing PN for pT1b and pT2a renal masses over the study period, 504 (6.7%) had PSM. On multivariable analysis, surgical approach (laparoscopic or robot assisted vs open) was not significantly associated with surgical margin (p = 0.12 and p = 0.44, respectively). Tumor stage (T2a vs T1b) also showed no significant association (p = 0.18). A subsequent multivariable analysis using clinical staging showed that surgical approach (p = 0.28 and p = 0.54, respectively), tumor stage (p = 0.78), and conversion-to-open surgery (p = 0.98) had no significant association with PSM. Propensity score matched analysis showed that PSM was not significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio 0.95 [95% confidence interval 0.47-1.92] p = 0.88).

CONCLUSION

In a contemporary nation-wide cohort, surgical approach was not associated with an increased risk of PSM for large, noninvasive renal masses. Furthermore, increased size from T1b to T2a was not associated with an increased risk of PSM. These data suggest that surgical approach should be selected by surgeon comfort level with an individual tumor, rather than the size of the tumor itself.

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.

Assessing perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes of patients with imperative versus elective indications for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: Results from a high-volume center

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of imperative or elective indications on the perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes of patients undergoing robot-assisted partial nephrectomy.

METHODS

Between June 2006 and September 2016, data of patients who underwent robot-assisted partial nephrectomy at the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwziekenhuis Hospital in Aalst, Belgium, were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively collected database. Only patients with non-metastatic, clinical T1-T2 graded tumors were included. Perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes were recollected. A comparative analysis was carried out after dividing patients into two groups: those who underwent robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for an elective indication (group 1, n = 194), and for an imperative indication (group 2, n = 57) caused by a solitary kidney (n = 20), impaired renal function (n = 2) or both (n = 35).

RESULTS

Patients in group 2 were older (74 vs 71 years, P < 0.001), and had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (P < 0.001) and American Society of Anesthesiologists score (P < 0.001). No differences were observed concerning laterality, sex, preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical score or clinical stage. Surgical outcomes considering estimated blood loss, surgical time, ischemia time and transfusion rate showed no significant difference between groups. The complication rate according to Clavien-Dindo showed no difference between groups (P = 0.6). No difference was found between groups with regard to percentage decrease of estimated glomerular filtration rate (7.4 vs 4.8%, P < 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy can be safely and effectively carried out by experienced surgeons in a high-volume center with similar perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes for both elective or imperative indications.

Does tumour effraction during robotic partial nephrectomy have any impact on recurrence?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of accidental surgical incision into the tumour (ASIT) on oncological outcomes in patients undergoing RPN for a malignant tumour.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of our prospectively maintained database was performed to identify all patients who underwent RPN for a localized RCC between June 2010 and July 2016. We stratified our cohort into two groups according to the presence of an ASIT. Perioperative data were compared between the two groups. Logistic regression analyses were used to assess the variables associated with ASIT. Recurrence-free survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups with the log-rank test.

RESULTS

A total of 234 patients were identified. 32 (14%) ASIT were observed. Patients' characteristics were similar in the two groups. Most of intraoperative outcomes were comparable between the two groups, but patients in the ASIT group had greater EBL (475 vs. 300 mL; p = 0.01). In multivariate analysis, tumour size (p = 0.02), RENAL score (p = 0.02), EBL (p = 0.05) and low surgeon experience (p = 0.03) were all predictive factors of ASIT. 15 (6%) of recurrences were observed over a median follow-up of 36 months. There was no difference in recurrence-free survival between the two groups (p = 0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, accidental surgical incision into the tumour during RPN was a common event that did not appear to compromise oncological outcome.

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: How to minimise renal ischaemia

Renal ischaemia research has shown an increase in renal damage proportional to ischaemic time. Therefore, we assessed the importance of renal ischaemic times for warm and cold ischaemia approaches, and explored the different surgical techniques that can help to minimise renal ischaemia in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). Minimising renal ischaemia during nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) is a key factor in preserving postoperative renal function. Current data support a safe warm ischaemia time (WIT) of ≤25 min and cold ischaemic time of ≤35 min, resulting in no significant deterioration in renal function. In general, patients undergoing NSS have increased comorbidities, including chronic kidney disease, and in these patients it is difficult to predict their postoperative renal function recovery. With RAPN, efforts should be made to keep the WIT to <25 min, as minimising the ischaemic time is vital for preservation of overall renal function and remains a modifiable risk factor. Parenchymal or segmental artery clamping, early unclamping or off-clamp techniques can be adopted when ischaemic times are likely to be >25 min, but may not lead to superior functional outcome. Careful preoperative planning, tumour factors, and meticulous surgical technique are critical for optimum patient outcome.

Perioperative Morbidity of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Partial Nephrectomy: A Contemporary Analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

In recent years, there has been a shift to minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) with the dissemination of robot-assisted technology. However, contemporary data on the comparative morbidity of open partial nephrectomy (OPN) and MIPN are lacking. We, therefore, evaluated the perioperative morbidity of OPN and MIPN using a contemporary national cohort.

METHODS

We identified 13,658 patients aged 18 to 89 who underwent PN from 2010 to 2015 in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, of whom 9018 (66.0%) underwent MIPN. The associations of MIPN with 30-day morbidity were evaluated using logistic regression, adjusted for patient features.

RESULTS

Median age at surgery was 60 (interquartile range [IQR] 51, 68) years. Overall, 30-day complications occurred in 6.7% of patients. Compared with OPN, MIPN was associated with lower rates of 30-day complications (4.9% vs 10.1%, p < 0.0001), perioperative blood transfusion (3.8% vs 12.5%, p < 0.0001), prolonged hospitalization (5.6% vs 23.4%, p < 0.0001), readmission (4.4% vs 7.8%, p < 0.0001), reoperation (1.8% vs 3.2%, p < 0.0001), and 30-day mortality (0.3% vs 0.6%, p = 0.001). On multivariable analysis, MIPN was independently associated with a reduced risk of 30-day complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.46, p < 0.0001), perioperative blood transfusion (OR 0.27, p < 0.0001), prolonged hospitalization (OR 0.19, p < 0.0001), readmission (OR 0.59, p < 0.0001), and reoperation (OR 0.57, p < 0.0001). Postoperative complications occurred predominantly early after surgery, whereas hospital readmissions and reoperation occurred at a consistent rate.

CONCLUSIONS

In this contemporary national cohort, MIPN was independently associated with reduced rates of 30-day complications, perioperative blood transfusion, prolonged hospitalization, hospital readmission, and reoperation, compared with OPN.

Role of Clinical and Surgical Factors for the Prediction of Immediate, Early and Late Functional Results, and its Relationship with Cardiovascular Outcome after Partial Nephrectomy: Results from the Prospective Multicenter RECORd 1 Project

PURPOSE

We sought to determine the predictors of short-term and long-term renal function impairment after partial nephrectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical data on 769 consecutive patients who underwent partial nephrectomy were prospectively recorded at a total of 19 urological Italian centers from 2009 to 2012 in the RECORd 1 (Italian Registry of Conservative Renal Surgery) Project. We extracted clinical data on 708 of these patients who were alive, free of recurrent disease and with a minimum 2-year functional followup.

RESULTS

Of the patients 47.3% underwent open, 36.6% underwent laparoscopic and 16.1% underwent robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. The median baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate was 84.5 ml/minute/1.73 m² (IQR 69.9-99.1). Immediate (day 3 postoperatively), early (month 1) and late (month 24) renal function impairment greater than 25% from baseline was identified in 25.3%, 21.6% and 14.8% of cases, respectively. Female gender and the baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate were independent predictors of immediate, early and late renal function impairment. Age at diagnosis was an independent predictor of immediate and late impairment. Uncontrolled diabetes was an independent predictor of late impairment only. Open and laparoscopic approaches, and pedicle clamping were independent predictors of immediate and early renal function impairment. Overall 58 of 529 patients (11%) experienced postoperative cardiovascular events. Body mass index and late renal function impairment were independent predictors of those events.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgically modifiable factors were significantly associated with worse immediate and early functional outcomes after partial nephrectomy while clinically unmodifiable factors affected renal function during the entire followup. Late renal function impairment is an independent predictor of postoperative cardiovascular events.

Performing all major surgical procedures robotically will prolong wait times for surgery

This article aimed to assess the burden of scheduling major urologic oncology procedures if all cases were performed robotically and to determine whether this would increase the time a patient would have to wait for surgery. We retrospectively determined the number of prostatectomies, radical nephrectomies, partial nephrectomies, and cystectomies at a single institution for one calendar year. A hypothetical situation was then constructed where all procedures were performed robotically. Using the allotted number of days that each surgeon was able to schedule robotic procedures, we analyzed the amount of time it would take to schedule and complete all cases. Five fellowship-trained surgeons were included in the study and accounted for 317 surgical cases. Three of the surgeons had dedicated robotic surgery (RS) time (block time), while two surgeons scheduled when there was non-dedicated RS time (open time) available. If all cases were performed robotically an additional 32 days would be needed, which could significantly increase the wait time to surgery. The limited number of robotic systems available in most hospitals creates a bottleneck effect; whereby increasing the number of cases would considerably lengthen the waiting time patients have for surgery. As RS becomes increasingly more commonplace in urology and other surgical fields, this could create a significant problem for health care systems.

Complications of Renal Surgery

The incidence of the small renal mass continues to increase owing to the aging population and the ubiquity imaging. Most of these tumors are stage I tumors. Management strategies include surveillance, ablation, and extirpation. There is a wide body of literature favoring nephron-sparing approaches. Although nephron-sparing surgery may yield decreased long-term morbidity, it is not without its drawbacks, including a higher rate of complications. Urologists must be attuned to the complications of surgery and develop strategies to minimize risk. This article reviews expected complications of surgery on renal masses and risk stratification schema.

Renal cell carcinoma

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) denotes cancer originated from the renal epithelium and accounts for >90% of cancers in the kidney. The disease encompasses >10 histological and molecular subtypes, of which clear cell RCC (ccRCC) is most common and accounts for most cancer-related deaths. Although somatic VHL mutations have been described for some time, more-recent cancer genomic studies have identified mutations in epigenetic regulatory genes and demonstrated marked intra-tumour heterogeneity, which could have prognostic, predictive and therapeutic relevance. Localized RCC can be successfully managed with surgery, whereas metastatic RCC is refractory to conventional chemotherapy. However, over the past decade, marked advances in the treatment of metastatic RCC have been made, with targeted agents including sorafenib, sunitinib, bevacizumab, pazopanib and axitinib, which inhibit vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its receptor (VEGFR), and everolimus and temsirolimus, which inhibit mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1), being approved. Since 2015, agents with additional targets aside from VEGFR have been approved, such as cabozantinib and lenvatinib; immunotherapies, such as nivolumab, have also been added to the armamentarium for metastatic RCC. Here, we provide an overview of the biology of RCC, with a focus on ccRCC, as well as updates to complement the current clinical guidelines and an outline of potential future directions for RCC research and therapy.

Comparison of open and robotic nephron sparing surgery: a single centre experience

Objective:

To compare robotic partial nephrectomy (RAPN) with open partial nephrectomy (OPN) to assess efficacy and impact of learning curve.

Methods:

From 2010 to 2015 159 patients had a partial nephrectomy (82 OPN and 77 RAPN). All data were collected prospectively. We compared the demographics, peri and postoperative outcomes.

Results:

Mean age was 60 years in both groups; 59% of patients were men. Tumour size was larger in the open group (34 mm vs 30 mm; P<0.08), but RENAL nephrometry scores greater than 6 were comparable (over 60%). Mean ischaemic time was longer in the RAPN group (18 vs 13 minutes; P<0.04) but complication rates were similar. The RAPN cohort had a reduced estimated blood loss (100 ml vs 300 ml; P<0.01) and shorter median hospital stay (2 vs 5 days; P<0.01). Only two patients in each group were margin positive. The RAPN cohort demonstrated reduced estimated blood loss and a trend towards more complex tumours with increasing learning curve.

Conclusion:

RAPN is superior to OPN in terms of reduced hospital stay and estimated blood loss without compromising oncological outcomes. This service can be delivered safely and effectively in a low to medium volume cancer centre; these results are similar to published figures from high volume international centres.

Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy provides better operative outcomes as compared to the laparoscopic and open approaches: results from a prospective cohort study

The objective of this is to compare the surgical outcomes of partial nephrectomy (PN), performed via three different approaches: robot-assisted (RAPN), laparoscopic (LPN), and open (OPN), in a single non-academic regional center. The data of patients undergoing PN at our Department from 2005 to 2016 were prospectively collected. A logistic regression model adjusted for preoperative variables (age, tumor size, creatinine and hemoglobin, ASA and Padua scores) was performed to evaluate whether transfusion, conversion, and postoperative complication rate were influenced by the surgical approach. Overall 270 patients underwent PN: analysis included 253 cases (RAPN = 110, LPN = 70, OPN = 73). Preoperative variables did not differ significantly among the three groups. Shorter operative (130 vs 180 and 200') and ischaemia (12 vs 23 and 22') times and longer hospital stay (8 vs 7 and 6 days) were found in the OPN group as compared to LPN and RAPN, respectively. The RAPN group included a higher rate of pT1b (31.8 vs 14.2 and 15%) and malignant histotype (90 vs 82.9 and 68.5%) as compared to LPN and OPN, respectively. Clavien Grade III-IV complications were lower in the RAPN (7.2%) as compared to OPN (12.3%) and LPN (17.1%) groups. Multivariate analysis showed a lower risk for conversion, transfusion and overall complications in the RAPN group versus LPN and OPN. The surgical approach affects the perioperative outcomes in a regional setting. The advantages of RAPN over OPN (lower risk of conversion, transfusion, and overall complications) are extended over LPN as well, although OPN offered faster operative and ischemia times at the expense of greater blood loss and hospital stay.

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.