Content uploaded by Ali Abdel Raheem
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ali Abdel Raheem on Jun 22, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Functional and oncologic outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy: A Multicenter comparative matched‐pair analyses with a median 5 years follow up
BJU International
Abstract and Figures
Purpose
Data regarding the long‐term oncologic and functional outcomes of robotic‐assisted, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy (RPN, LPN and OPN) is lacking. Our aim was to compare outcomes among RPN, LPN and OPN with a 5‐year median follow‐up.
Patients and Methods
We retrospectively analyzed 1308 patients who underwent PN (RPN, n=380; LPN, n=206; OPN, n=722) between 2006 and 2012 at four academic centers. We performed 1:1:1 propensity score matching adjustment based on confounding variables among groups and 366 patients (122 in each group) were included in the final analysis. Survival rates were analyzed by Kaplan‐Meier method.
Results
The median follow‐up was 60, 59.8 and 64.1 months in RPN, LPN and OPN, respectively. In the matched groups, RPN showed significantly lower mean estimated blood loss compared to LPN (p=0.025) and OPN (p=0.040), while LPN had longer mean operative time compared to RPN (p=0.001) and OPN (p=0.001). The hospital stay was shorter in the RPN group (p=0.008). Regarding the oncological outcomes, there were no significant differences among the three groups in local recurrence rate (p=0.882), distant metastasis (p=0.816), and cancer death (p=0.779). At latest follow‐up, the incidence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) upstaging was significantly lower in RPN compared to LPN (20.55% vs 32%, p=0.035) and OPN (20.5% vs 33.6%, p=0.038). The 5‐year CKD free‐survival rate was significantly higher 78.4% in RPN compared to 58.8% and 65.8% in LPN and OPN, respectively (log‐rank, p=0.031).
Conclusions
Our study showed that RPN, LPN, and OPN have similar local recurrence, distant metastasis and cancer‐related death rates at a 5‐year median follow‐up. In terms of functional outcomes, RPN shows a lower incidence of CKD upstaging compared to OPN and LPN
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved..
Figures - uploaded by Ali Abdel Raheem
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Ali Abdel Raheem
Content may be subject to copyright.
... p = 0.038). Additionally, the 5-year CKD-free survival rate was significantly higher in the RAPN group (78.4%) compared with the LPN (58.8%) and open partial nephrectomy (65.8%) groups (log-rank p = 0.030) [28]. ...
Background: The Hugo™ Robot-Assisted Surgery (RAS) system is a new cutting-edge robotic platform designed for clinical applications. Nevertheless, its application for cystic renal tumors has not yet been thoroughly investigated. In this context, we present an initial series of Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy (RAPN) procedures carried out using the Hugo™ RAS system for cystic renal masses. Methods: Between October 2022 and January 2024, twenty-seven RAPN procedures for renal tumors were performed at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico. Our prospective board-approved dataset was queried for “cystic features” (n = 12). Perioperative data were collected. The eGFR was calculated according to the CKD-EPI formula. Post-operative complications were reported according to the Clavien–Dindo classification. Computed tomography (CT) scans for follow-up were performed according to the EAU guidelines. Trifecta was defined as the coexistence of negative surgical margin status, no Clavien–Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications, and eGFR decline ≤ 30%. Results: All the patients successfully underwent RAPN without the need for conversion or additional port placement. The median docking and console time were 5.5 (IQR, 4–6) and 79.5 min (IQR, 58–91 min), respectively. No intraoperative complications occurred, as well as clashes between instruments or with the bedside assistant. Two minor postoperative complications were recorded (Clavien–Dindo II). At discharge, serum creatinine and eGFR were comparable to preoperative values. Only one patient (8.4%) displayed positive surgical margins. The rate of trifecta achievement was 91.7%. Conclusions: RAPN for cystic renal masses using the novel Hugo™ RAS system can be safely and effectively performed. This robotic system provided satisfactory peri-operative outcomes, preserving renal function and displaying low postoperative complications and a high trifecta rate achievement.
... In the surgical treatment of small RCCs, partial nephrectomy maintains oncological outcomes equivalent to those of radical nephrectomy with less renal function impairment and fewer cardiovascular events, thereby leading to longer overall survival [1,2]. Furthermore, since the first study by Gettman et al. on robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) [3], it has rapidly become popular owing to research reporting the incidences of complications and oncological outcomes equivalent to those of open and laparoscopic surgeries, with lesser bleeding and shorter hospital stays [4]. ...
Purpose
Our study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) between younger and older patients after adjusting for their background differences. We particularly assessed RAPN outcomes and safety in older patients.
Methods
We retrospectively evaluated 559 patients clinically diagnosed with T1 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and treated with RAPN between 2013 and 2022 at five institutions in Japan. The patients were classified into two groups according to their age during surgery (younger group: < 75 years, older group: ≥ 75 years). Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to adjust for the differences in the backgrounds between younger and older patients, and surgical outcomes were compared.
Results
Among the 559 patients, 422 (75.5%) and 137 (24.5%) were classified into the younger and older groups, respectively; 204 and 102 patients from the younger and older groups were matched according to PSM, respectively. Subsequently, patient characteristics other than age were not significantly different between the two groups. In the matched cohort, the older group had more patients with major complications (younger, 3.0%; older, 8.8%; P = 0.045).
Conclusion
Surgical outcomes of RAPN in older patients with RCC were comparable with those in younger patients, although older patients experiencedsignificantly more complications than younger patients. These results suggest the need for further detailed preoperative evaluation and appropriate postoperative management in older patients receiving RAPN.
... p = 0.038) was observed. The 5-year CKD-free survival rate was significantly higher in the RAPN group (78.4%) compared with the LPN (58.8%) and open partial nephrectomy (65.8%) groups (log-rank p = 0.03) [31]. ...
(1) Background: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) is still performed in many referred urological institutions, representing a valid alternative to robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). We aimed to compare trifecta outcomes of LPN and RAPN with the Hugo™ RAS System. (2) Methods: Between October 2022 and September 2023, eighty-nine patients underwent minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (group A, RAPN = 27; group B, Laparoscopic PN = 62) for localized renal tumors at our Institution. Continuous variables were presented as median and IQR and compared by means of the Mann–Whitney U test, while categorical variables were presented as frequencies (%) and compared by means of the χ² test. (3) Results: Group A showed a higher rate of male patients (81.5% vs. 59.7%, p = 0.04) and a higher trend towards larger clinical tumor size (34 vs. 29 mm, p = 0.14). All the other baseline variables were comparable between the two groups (all p > 0.05). Regarding post-operative data, group A displayed a lower operative time (92 vs. 149.5 min, p = 0.005) and a shorter hospital stay (3 vs. 5, p = 0.002). A higher rate of malignant pathology was evidenced in group A (77.8% vs. 58.1%, p = 0.07) as well as a lower trend towards positive surgical margins (3.7% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.82), even if not statistically significant. (4) Conclusions: The rate of trifecta achievement was 92.6% and 82.3% for group A and B (p = 0.10), respectively. In terms of trifecta outcomes, RAPN using the Hugo™ RAS System showed comparable results to LPN performed by the same experienced surgeon.
... Other surgical methods of PN were not beneficial compared with PCA with regards to LRFS in cT1 tumours. Nevertheless, the studies specifically comparing the outcomes of RAPN, LPN and OPN found that the surgical approach did not influence LRFS [30][31][32]. ...
Simple Summary
Percutaneous cryoablation (PCA) is a minimally invasive procedure that should be considered in comorbid patients with stage T1 renal tumours who are suboptimal candidates for partial nephrectomy (PN). However, there is a scarcity of scientific data regarding the efficacy of PCA. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare PCA and PN in terms of complications, renal function and survival outcomes. According to this analysis, PCA is associated with fewer complications than PN. Moreover, in tumours up to 4 cm, it provides the same time without local recurrence. Therefore, PCA should be proposed to patients with cT1 renal tumours who are not fit for PN but want to undergo a radical treatment.
Abstract
Percutaneous cryoablation (PCA) can be an alternative to partial nephrectomy (PN) in selected patients with stage T1 renal tumours. Existing meta-analyses regarding ablative techniques compared both laparoscopic and PCA with PN. That is why we decided to perform a meta-analysis that focused solely on PCA. The aim of this study was to compare the complications and functional and oncological outcomes between PCA and PN. A systematic literature search was performed in January 2024. Data for dichotomous and continuous variables were expressed as pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Effect measures for the local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were expressed as pooled hazard ratios with 95% CIs. Among 6487 patients included in the 14 selected papers, 1554 (23.9%) and 4924 (76.1%) underwent PCA and PN, respectively. Compared with the PN group, patients undergoing PCA had significantly lower overall and major postoperative complication rates. There was no difference in renal function between PCA and PN groups. When analysing collective data for cT1 renal carcinoma, PCA was associated with worse LRFS compared with PN. However, subgroup analysis revealed that in the case of PCA, LRFS was not decreased in patients with cT1a tumours. Moreover, patients undergoing robotic-assisted PN had improved LRFS compared with those undergoing PCA. No significant differences were observed between PCA and PN in terms of MFS and CSS. Finally, PCA was associated with worse OS than PN in both collective and subgroup analyses. In conclusion, PCA is associated with favourable postoperative complication rates relative to PN. Regarding LRFS, PCA is not worse than PN in cT1a tumours but has a substantially relevant disadvantage in cT1b tumours. Also, RAPN might be the only surgical modality that provides better LRFS than PCA. In cT1 tumours, PCA shows MFS and CSS comparable to PN. Lastly, PCA is associated with a shorter OS than PN.
Introduction
This review aims to analyze the existing literature on local recurrence (LR) in patients undergoing partial nephrectomy (PN) for renal cell carcinoma, identifying relative risk factors, and exploring optimal clinical management strategies.
Methods
A comprehensive literature search was conducted across bibliographic databases, primarily focusing on LR rates. Secondary outcomes included evaluation of positive surgical margins (PSM), nephrometry scores, pathological stage (T and grading), perioperative outcomes, time-to-LR, overall survival, and cancer-specific survival.
Results
Due to the heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis was performed. LR rates after PN varied in the literature; with PSM emerging as a significant risk factor. Other LR risk factors included pathological stage, nephrometry scores, and histological variants. However, evidence regarding optimal LR management in the absence of precise indications was lacking.
Conclusion
LR represents a significant clinical challenge; requiring multidisciplinary assessment and shared decision-making with patients. Given well-established risk factors, clinicians must tailor management strategies to optimize patient outcomes.
Both partial nephrectomy (pNx) and total nephrectomy (TNx) are the mainstay of the surgical treatment of renal cell carcinoma. In smaller masses, ablative treatment as well as surveillance are possible options.
The aim of this article is to provide a closer look at the surgical methods, active surveillance and ablative options as well as the current evidence to support their use.
This study is based on a selective literature review regarding pNx and TNx for renal cell carcinoma using the PubMed database and the review of current European and American guidelines on surgical treatment and conservative options for renal cell carcinoma.
The choice of surgical method depends on the intrarenal tumor configuration as well as patient comorbidities. While pNx is used for smaller localized masses TNx is usually performed in larger more complex tumors. Both methods can be performed using a minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotically assisted) or an open approach. In patients with severe comorbidities or a limited life expectancy, local ablative treatment options as well as surveillance strategies are suitable strategies.
Introduction. There is a dearth of literature comparing the three modalities of partial nephrectomy – open, laparoscopic, and robotic – based on two contemporary criteria, “trifecta” and “pentafecta”. This scarcity justifies the significance of this study.
Objective. To conduct a comparative evaluation of the outcomes of the three methods of partial nephrectomy, assessed against the criteria of “trifecta” and “pentafecta”.
Materials & Methods. The prospective study included 600 patients with renal cell cancer from 2018 to 2022. partial nephrectomy was performed using open (200 patients), laparoscopic (200 patients) and robotic (200 patients) techniques. Outcomes were assessed by “trifecta” (negative surgical margin; warm ischemia time ≤ 25 minutes or without ischemia; no ≥ Clavien-Dindo III grade postoperative complications within 3 months after surgery) and “pentafecta” (“trifecta”, ≥ 90% estimated glomerular filtration rate preservation and no chronic kidney disease stage upgrading 12 months after surgery).
Results. The “trifecta” outcome was achieved in 82%, 89%, and 84% of cases, respectively, using open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches. No significant differences in outcomes were found between these methods (p > 0.05), according to this criterion. The “pentafecta” outcome was achieved in 53%, 64%, and 66% of cases using the same three approaches, respectively. Significant differences in outcomes between the open approach and the minimally invasive techniques were observed (p < 0.05) based on this criterion. For tumors that were considered easier to resect (R.E.N.A.L. 4 – 6 score), the highest “pentafecta” rates were observed with laparoscopic and robotic procedures. For tumors with moderate complexity (R.E.N.A.L. 7 – 9 score), open surgery resulted in the poorest outcomes, which were significantly different from those of robotic partial nephrectomy (p < 0.05). The laparoscopic approach yielded the poorest results for the most complex tumors (R.E.N.A.L. 10 – 12 score).
Conclusions. In general, all three methods of partial nephrectomy produce the same outcome according to the “trifecta”, but according to the “pentafecta” better results may be achieved using minimally invasive techniques (laparoscopic and robotic procedures). Robotic partial nephrectomy should be considered as the method of choice for high-scored R.E.N.A.L. and cT1 – cT2 tumours.
Background
Partial nephrectomy is strongly recommended by the EAU guidelines as the primary treatment option for T1 Renal Cell Carcinoma. Robotic assisted partial nephrectomy has been gaining ground as an approach with similar oncological results to open and laparoscopic approaches, while outperforming them in secondary endpoints, such as functional and perioperative results.
Materials and Methods
We present our cohort of multiple renal tumors treated with robotic partial nephrectomy. 4 patients were treated for double kidney tumours. We demonstrate patients' demographics and tumour preoperative assessment, our surgical technique, operative details, such as the perioperative outcomes and complications.
Conclusion
Our experience in the treatment of multiple renal masses with robotic partial nephrectomy suggests favourable outcomes for our patients extending the oncological, functional and perioperative results of RAPN.
Background
Retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy (RLPN) is the premier treatment for localized renal tumors despite narrow operation space. Many efforts have been taken to facilitate the operation of RLPN, but the optimal resolution remains debatable.
Objective
To explore the feasibility of using Mini‐lap to improve workspace and surgical vision in RLPN.
Design, Setting, and Participants
A multicenter retrospective review of 51 patients who underwent RLPN with Mini‐lap from January 2018 to December 2020 was conducted.
Surgical Procedure
Standard RLPN under three poles was performed in all cases. We highlighted the usage of Mini‐lap (Teleflex Minilap percutaneous Surgical System) as a novel retractor in RLPN.
Outcome and Measurements and Statical Analysis
Demographics, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes were assessed.
Results and Limitations
All 51 cases completed RLPN with three ports successfully and no conversion to open surgery. The mean diameter of tumors was (3.53 ± 1.05) cm, in which 62.7% (32/51) were located anteriorly. The operation time and warm ischemic time (WIT) were (86.7 ± 15.9) min and (25.6 ± 5) min respectively. Minor complications (Clavien grade 1−2) occurred in 6 cases. The limitations were small sample size, retrospective design, and absence of control.
Conclusions
Mini‐lap could be used as a mini‐retractor in RLPN, sparing extra assistant ports, expanding workspace, and optimizing vision.
Patient Summary
With highlights of larger workspace and less instrument interference, mini‐lap could be applied in retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.
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.
Purpose:
In this study we aimed to report a comparative analysis between open and robotic nephron sparing surgeries (NSS) from a single institutional database.
Methods:
Patients who have undergone NSS during the robotic era of our institution were included in this study. Open (n = 74) and robotic (n = 59) groups were compared regarding trifecta outcome. Trifecta was defined as; warm ischemia time (WIT) <25 min, negative surgical margins and the absence of perioperative complications.
Results:
A total of 57 (77 %) and 45 (76 %) patients in the open and robotic groups, respectively achieved the trifecta outcome. Overall trifecta rate was 77 % (n = 102/133). The only statistically significant difference between trifecta positive and trifecta negative patients was the length of hospitalization (LOH). Except LOH; none of the tested parameters were shown to be predictive of trifecta outcome on univariate and multivariate analyses. Concerning trifecta positive patients; those in the open surgery group had larger tumors with a higher degree of morphometric complexity and were hospitalized for a longer period of time. Additionally, operative duration was significantly higher in the robotic group.
Conclusions:
In our cohort, no significant difference in achieving the trifecta outcome was reported after open and robotic NSS. Length of hospitalization was the only parameter that differed significantly between trifecta positive and trifecta negative patients. Surgical approach was not a significant predictor of simultaneous achievement of trifecta outcomes. Irrespective of the trifecta definition; larger and more complicated tumors were handled via open NSS.
To critically review the currently available evidence of studies comparing robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN).
A comprehensive review of the literature from Pubmed, Web of Science and Scopus was performed in October 2013. All relevant studies comparing RPN with OPN were included for further screening. A cumulative meta-analysis of all comparative studies was performed and publication bias was assessed by a funnel plot.
Eight studies were included for the analysis, including a total of 3418 patients (757 patients in the robotic group and 2661 patients in the open group). Although RPN procedures had a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 40.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 14.39-67.40; p = 0.002), patients in this group benefited from a lower perioperative complication rate (19.3% for RPN and 29.5% for OPN; odds ratio [OR]: 0.53; 95%CI, 0.42-0.67; p<0.00001), shorter hospital stay (WMD: -2.78; 95%CI, -3.36 to -1.92; p<0.00001), less estimated blood loss(WMD: -106.83; 95%CI, -176.4 to -37.27; p = 0.003). Transfusions, conversion to radical nephrectomy, ischemia time and estimated GFR change, margin status, and overall cost were comparable between the two techniques. The main limitation of the present meta-analysis is the non-randomization of all included studies.
RPN appears to be an efficient alternative to OPN with the advantages of a lower rate of perioperative complications, shorter length of hospital stay and less blood loss. Nevertheless, high quality prospective randomized studies with longer follow-up period are needed to confirm these findings.
Comparison of treatments for partial nephrectomy is limited by case selection. We compared robotic (RPN), laparoscopic (LPN), and open partial nephrectomy (OPN), controlling for tumor size, patient age, sex, and nephrometry score.
RPN, LPN, and OPN procedures between March 2003 and March 2010 were reviewed. All RPN and LPN were included, and 2 OPN were matched for each RPN in tumor size (±0.5cm), patient age (±10 y), sex, and nephrometry score. Perioperative outcomes were compared.
Ninety-six partial nephrectomy procedures were reviewed: 27 RPN, 15 LPN, and 54 OPN. RPN, LPN, and OPN had similar median tumor size (2.4, 2.2, and 2.3cm, respectively), nephrometry score (6.0 each), and preoperative glomerular filtration rate (71.5, 84.6, and 77.0 mL/min/1.73m(2), respectively). Blood loss was higher for OPN (250 mL) than for RPN or LPN (100 mL), P < 0.001. Operative time was shorter in OPN (147 min) than in RPN (190 min) or LPN (195 min), P < .001. Median warm ischemia time was shorter for OPN (12.0 min) than for RPN (25.0 min) or LPN (29.5 min), P Kt; .05. Cold ischemia time for OPN was 25.0 min. A 10% glomerular filtration rate decline occurred in 10 RPN, 5 LPN, and 29 OPN cases (P < .252). Median hospital stay for LPN and RPN was 2.0 d versus 3.0 d for OPN (P < .001). Urine leak occurred in 1 RPN and 3 OPN cases. Postoperative complications occurred in 4 RPN (3 were Clavien grade 2 or less), 1 LPN (grade 1), and 7 OPN (6 were grade 2 or less) cases.
Renal function preservation and complications are similar for each treatment modality. OPN offers faster operative and ischemia times at the expense of greater blood loss and hospital stay.
Objectives:
To evaluate perioperative results of open (OPN), laparoscopic (LPN) and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and to identify predictive factors of Trifecta achievement for clinical T1b renal tumors in a multicenter prospective dataset.
Methods:
Data of 285 patients who had OPN (133), LPN (57) or RAPN (95) for cT1b renal tumors were extracted from the RECORd Project. High volume centers were defined as ≥ 50 overall cases of partial nephrectomy per year. Trifecta was defined as simultaneous absence of perioperative complications, negative surgical margins, ischemia time <25 minutes.
Results:
The three groups had comparable BMI, preoperative haemoglobin, creatinine and eGFR, tumor clinical diameter and growth pattern. LPN and RAPN were more frequently exclusive of high volume centers. RAPN showed significantly lower median estimated blood loss compared to OPN and LPN. Trifecta was achieved in 62.4%, 63.2% and 69.5% OPN, LPN and RAPN (p=NS). Median WIT was significantly shorter during OPN than during LPN and RAPN. RAPN had significantly shorter WIT compared to LPN. RAPN was significantly less morbid than OPN regarding intraoperative and postoperative complications. LPN (1.9%) and RAPN (2.5%) showed a lower rate of positive margins compared to OPN (6.8%) (p=NS). At multivariable analysis, exophytic tumor growth pattern, estimated blood loss and high volume centers were significant predictive factors for Trifecta achievement.
Conclusions:
Clinically T1b renal tumors suitable for NSS can be safely treated by LPN or RAPN in high volume centers. RAPN allows for significantly lower WIT and EBL with higher rate of Trifecta achievement compared to LPN.
Background:
Robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) is established as a minimally invasive nephron-sparing technique with excellent perioperative and intermediate oncologic outcomes. However, long-term oncologic outcomes have not been reported to date.
Objective:
To report long-term oncologic outcomes of RPN.
Design, setting, and participants:
Consecutive patients undergoing RPN from June 2006 to March 2010 were selected from our prospective RPN database. Patients with benign tumors, prior ipsilateral PN, or prior radical nephrectomy and those with follow-up of <1 mo were excluded.
Intervention:
Transperitoneal RPN.
Outcomes measurements and statistical analysis:
Demographic, perioperative, and postoperative data were analyzed. Overall survival (OS), cancer-free survival (CFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Univariate logistic regression analysis for overall mortality was performed to evaluate the odds ratio (OR) for variables of interest.
Results and limitations:
In total, 115 RPNs for RCC were performed in 110 patients. The mean age was 59.8±11.0 yr and the median age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index (ACCI) was 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 3-5). The median tumor size was 2.6cm (IQR 2.0-3.7) and median RENAL score was 7 (IQR 6-9). Clear cell carcinoma was present in 67.8% of cases, and two cases (1.7%) had positive surgical margins. Glomerular filtration rate preservation was 87.8% (IQR 74.9-98.1), which translates to 19.1% chronic kidney disease upstaging. The median follow-up was 61.9 mo (IQR 50.9-71.4) and the 5-yr OS, CFS, and CSS were 91.1%, 97.8%, and 97.8%, respectively. On univariable logistic regression, ACCI was the only factor associated with a higher risk of overall mortality (OR 1.67, p=0.006). The retrospective design, the high surgical volume at our institution, and the potential selection bias with careful patient selection early in the RPN experience may limit the generalizability of our findings.
Conclusions:
This is the first study confirming excellent long-term oncologic outcomes after RPN in a selected cohort of patients.
Patient summary:
Robotic partial nephrectomy is a relatively recently developed treatment for renal cell carcinoma. This study confirms its safety and reports excellent long-term cancer control.
Robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) is rapidly increasing; however, the benefit of RPN over laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) is controversial.
To compare perioperative outcomes of RPN and LPN.
We searched Ovid-Medline, Ovid-Embase, the Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, KMbase, KISS, RISS, and KisTi from their inception through August 2013. Two independent reviewers extracted data using a standardized form. Quality of the selected studies was assessed using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies.
A total of 23 studies and 2240 patients were included. All studies were cohort studies with no randomization, and the methodological quality varied. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding complications of Clavien-Dindo classification grades 1-2 (p=0.62), Clavien-Dindo classification grades 3-5 (p=0.78), change of serum creatinine (p=0.65), operative time (p=0.35), estimated blood loss (p=0.76), and positive margins (p=0.75). The RPN group had a significantly lower rate of conversion to open surgery (p=0.02) and conversion to radical surgery (p=0.0006), shorter warm ischemia time (WIT; p=0.005), smaller change of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; p=0.03), and shorter length of stay (LOS; p=0.004).
This meta-analysis shows that RPN is associated with more favorable results than LPN in conversion rate to open or radical surgery, WIT, change of eGFR, and shorter LOS. To establish the safety and effectiveness outcomes of robotic surgery, well-designed randomized clinical studies with long-term follow-up are needed.
Robotic partial nephrectomy (PN) is more favorable than laparoscopic PN in terms of lower conversion rate to radical nephrectomy, a favorable renal function indexed estimated glomerular filtration rate, shorter length of hospital stay, and shorter warm ischemia time.
Copyright © 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
To report a matched-pair comparative analysis between open (OPN) and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) for clinical (c) T1a renal masses from a large prospective multicenter dataset.
The RECORd Project includes all patients who underwent OPN and LPN for kidney cancer between January 2009 and January 2011 at 19 Italian centers. Open and laparoscopic groups were compared regarding clinical, surgical, pathologic, functional results and TRIFECTA outcome. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to analyze predictors of WIT >25 min, surgical complications (SC) and the achievement of the TRIFECTA outcome.
Overall, 301 patients had OPN and 149 LPN. Groups were matched 1:1 (140 matched pairs) for clinical diameter, tumor location and type of indication. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy was associated with a significantly mean longer WIT (19.9 vs. 15.1 min; p < 0.001), and it was an independent predictor of a WIT >25 min (RR 6.29, p < 0.0001). The TRIFECTA was achieved in 78.6 and 74.3 % after OPN and LPN (p = ns), respectively, and the surgical approach was not a predictor of a negative TRIFECTA and SC at multivariable analysis. At 6-month follow-up, no significant differences were observed between the OPN and LPN group both in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (∆GFR 1.1 vs. 4.1 mL/min) and in new-onset stage III-V chronic kidney disease (CKD) rate (0 vs. 0.7 %).
No significant difference in achieving the TRIFECTA outcome was reported after OPN and LPN. LPN was associated with a significantly longer WIT. However, eGFR at 6-month follow-up did not differ significantly between the two surgical approaches.
Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) in the setting of chronic kidney disease (CKD) presents additional challenges for the preservation of renal function.
To evaluate functional outcomes of RPN in patients with CKD relative to patients undergoing RPN without baseline CKD.
A total of 1197 consecutive patients who underwent RPN at five academic institutions between 2007 and 2012 were identified for this descriptive study. A total of 172 patients who underwent RPN with preexisting CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] of 15-60ml/min per 1.73 m(2)) were identified. Perioperative results of 121 patients were compared against propensity score-matched controls without CKD (eGFR ≥60ml/min per 1.73 m(2)).
RPN in patients with or without baseline CKD.
Descriptive statistics and propensity score-matched operative and functional outcomes.
After propensity score matching, patients with baseline CKD had a lower percentage eGFR decrease at first follow-up (-5.1 vs -10.9), which remained significant at a mean follow-up of 12.6 mo (-2.8 vs -9.1, p<0.05), and they had less CKD upstaging (11.8% vs 33.1%). CKD patients were less likely to be discharged in the first two postoperative days (39.7% vs 56.2%, p=0.006) and had a higher rate of surgical complications (21.5% vs 10.7%, p=0.007). The retrospective analysis was the main limitation of this study.
RPN in patients with baseline CKD is associated with a smaller decrease in renal function compared with patients without baseline CKD, but a higher risk of surgical complications and a longer hospital stay.
Background:
With the wider adoption of minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (PN), intermediate- and long-term outcomes data are needed to make firm conclusions about oncologic and functional efficacy, especially for robot-assisted PN (RPN).
Objective:
To report intermediate-term oncologic and renal functional outcomes of RPN.
Design, setting, and participants:
We performed a chart review of patients who had undergone RPN since June 2006; patients with a minimum of 2 yr of follow-up were included in this study. Length of follow-up was calculated from the date of surgery to the date of last clinical follow-up. Patients who were either lost to follow-up or who had follow-up outside of our center were sent surveys.
Intervention:
Transperitoneal RPN with or without hilar clamping.
Outcome measurements and statistical analysis:
The demographic, preoperative, and postoperative data were statistically analyzed. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and cancer-free survival (CFS). Upstaging of chronic kidney disease (CKD) was calculated, as well. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to show predicting factors for the latest estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).
Results and limitations:
Of 427 patients, 134 had a minimum follow-up of 2 yr, and 70 had a minimum of 3-6 yr of follow-up. The mean age was 59.1±12.5 yr, body mass index (BMI) was 29.8±6.2 kg/m(2), and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) score was 4.2±1.6. The mean tumor size on computed tomography (CT) scan was 3.0±1.6 cm, RENAL score was 7.2±1.8, estimated blood loss (EBL) was 270.7±291.9 ml, operative time was 189.1±54.8 min, and warm ischemia time (WIT) was 17.9±10.3 min. A total of two intraoperative complications (1.5%) and five high-grade Clavien complications (3.7%) occurred. Patients stayed on average for 3.7±1.7 d in the hospital, and the average follow-up was 3.0±0.9 yr. OS was 97.01% at 3 yr and 90.20% at 5 yr; CFS was 98.92% at 3 yr and 98.92% at 5 yr; and CSS was 99.04%, as projected by the Kaplan-Meier method. The mean preoperative GFR was 88.2±0.8 ml/min per 1.73 m(2); the latest postoperative GFR was 80±24 ml/min per 1.73 m(2), with a 8±17.4% change. There was a 20.2% upstaging of CKD postoperatively, but no patients started dialysis.
Conclusions:
This study reaffirms that RPN is effective in renal function preservation and oncologic control at an intermediate follow-up interval.