Emad Rizkala

Robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for completely endophytic renal masses: a single institution experience

To analyse the outcomes of robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for completely endophytic renal tumours.

Real-Time Robotic Transrectal Ultrasound Navigation During Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: Initial Clinical Experience

OBJECTIVE To describe a novel robotic transrectal ultrasound platform for real-time navigation during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) and to report its early clinical application. METHODS Five men undergoing RALPs at our Institution agreed to participate in this Institutional Review Board-approved pilot study. All of them were eligible for a bilateral nerve sparing procedure. Before docking the da Vinci robot, a transrectal ultrasound tri-plane side-fire probe was placed. A modified ViKY Endoscope Holder was used during RALPs to move the probe thanks to a remote control placed under the console surgeons control during RALPs. During each procedure, attempt was made to estimate prostate volume, define 12 reference points, and to precisely identify location of the neurovascular bundles using Doppler ultrasound. The TilePro was used during the procedures to allow real-time ultrasound imaging to guide robotic instruments during dissection. RESULTS Median robotic transrectal ultrasound probe holder (R-TRUS) setup time was 11 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 10-14). Prostate volume calculation, reference point definition, neurovascular bundle identification, and instrument tip visualization were successful in all men. In 1 patient with a large prostate (120 mL), R-TRUS was withdrawn during recto-prostatic dissection. There were no rectal injuries. CONCLUSION R-TRUS during RALPs is feasible and safe. It allows real-time TRUS navigation and guidance. Further studies are needed to evaluate its impact on oncological and functional outcomes.

Cryoablation Versus Minimally Invasive Partial Nephrectomy for Small Renal Masses in the Solitary Kidney: Impact of Approach on Functional Outcomes

PURPOSE We evaluated the change in renal function after renal cryoablation and partial nephrectomy based on tumor complexity according to the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score. MATERIALS AND METHODS We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients who had a renal tumor in a solitary kidney, and underwent renal cryoablation and partial nephrectomy between December 2000 and January 2012. Renal tumor complexity was categorized into 3 groups by R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score as low (4 to 6), intermediate (7 to 9) and high (10 to 12). All baseline demographic data, perioperative parameters and followup data including renal function were collected. Comparisons were made among similar tumor complexities. RESULTS In the renal cryoablation and partial nephrectomy groups 29 patients (43 tumors) and 33 patients were identified, respectively. In all renal tumor complexities, renal cryoablation provided a better perioperative outcome in terms of median operative time, estimated blood loss, transfusion, hospital stay and complications. The median change in serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate was slightly greater in the partial nephrectomy group. However, the differences were not statistically significant for any of the tumor complexities. Three patients (10%) in the renal cryoablation group and 2 (6%) in the partial nephrectomy group required long-term dialysis. CONCLUSIONS In patients with solitary kidneys, renal cryoablation is associated with superior perioperative outcomes compared to partial nephrectomy. Specifically, partial nephrectomy is not associated with greater loss of renal function than renal cryoablation regardless of the extent of tumor complexity.

Endoscopic-guided Versus Fluoroscopic-guided Renal Access for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Comparative Analysis

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the intraoperative outcomes of percutaneous renal access using fluoroscopic-guided access (FGA) vs endoscopic-guided access (EGA). METHODS A retrospective record review was conducted of patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), categorized by the method of achieving renal access. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 endourologists: 1 practicing EGA and the other practicing FGA. Patient demographics, baseline characteristics, and operative and postoperative outcomes were compared using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS From August 2010 to January 2012, 159 patients underwent PCNL (40% EGA, 60% FGA). No significant difference was observed between groups in age (P = .06), American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification (P = .7), number of stones (P = .058), cumulative stone diameter (P = .051), number of calyces involved (P = .82), and stone density (P = .49). Body mass index (BMI) was higher in patients undergoing EGA (P = .013). Patients undergoing EGA had shorter fluoroscopy time (3.2 vs 16.8 minutes, P <.001) and lower access number (1.03 vs 1.22 P = .002). Fluoroscopy time was longer for FGA than for EGA after adjusting for BMI, staghorn stones, and access number (P <.001). No significant difference was noted in change in hemoglobin, blood transfusion rate, operative time, or intraoperative complications between groups. Procedures were aborted due to bleeding more commonly in the FGA (8%) than in the EGA group (0%, P = .02) A secondary procedure for stone management was required in 2 (3.2%) of the EGA group compared with 12 (12.5%) of the FGA group. CONCLUSION EGA is safe and effective and leads to decreased fluoroscopy time, decreased need for multiple accesses, and decreased risk of early termination of the procedure or need for secondary procedures.

Repeat robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN): feasibility and early outcomes

To demonstrate the feasibility, and to report our single‐centre perioperative outcomes of repeat robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN).

Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for Small Renal Masses in Patients With Pre-existing Chronic Kidney Disease

OBJECTIVE To assess the outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy in patients with pre-existing chronic kidney disease (CKD). MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors between 2007 and 2011 were identified from our prospectively maintained institutional database. Perioperative as well as short-term oncological and functional outcomes were assessed. A comparative analysis was performed between patients with pre-existing CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] 15-60 mL/min, group 1, n = 52) and patients with eGFR >60 mL/min (group 2, n = 303). RESULTS Group 1 patients were older (median 68 vs 57 years, P < .001), with higher American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score (3 vs 2, P < .001) and a higher Charlson comorbidity index (7 vs 4, P < .001). Warm ischemia time (WIT) was similar in both groups (18 vs 18 minutes, P = .52). Group 1 had a higher postoperative complication rate (40.4% vs 21.1%, P = .003). Pathologic and oncological data were similar. After a median follow-up of 3 months (interquartile: 1-10), deterioration of eGFR was lower in group 1 patients (-5% vs -12%, P = .004). No endstage renal disease was noted in either group. There was significantly less CKD upstaging in group 1 than in group 2 (11.5% vs 33.9%, P = .001). After multivariate analysis, preoperative eGFR and WIT were independent predictors of latest eGFR. Less than 15% of patients with normal baseline renal function developed CKD stage III or higher. CONCLUSION Despite a high risk of surgical complications, robotic partial nephrectomy only marginally affects renal function in patients with pre-existing CKD.

Robot-Assisted Ureteroneocystostomy: Technique and Comparative Outcomes

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Ureteroneocystostomy can be used for the treatment of patients with a wide variety of ureteral pathology. Over the last decade, robot-assisted surgery has become more commonly used as a minimally invasive approach for reconstructive upper urinary tract procedures. The aim of this study is to present our experience with robot-assisted ureteroneocystosctomy (RUNC) with a comparison with that of open ureteroneocystostomy (OUNC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Medical records of 25 patients who underwent RUNC and 41 patients who underwent OUNC or at our institution between 2000 and 2010 were retrospectively analyzed. Perioperative and postoperative data including demographics, surgical outcomes, and clinical and radiographic findings at postoperative follow-up were considered in the comparative analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to present the data. The significance of the difference between variables was evaluated using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous and Fisher exact test for categorical variables. RESULTS No significant differences were detected in terms of baseline patient characteristics between the two groups. The OUNC procedures were performed with a shorter median operative time (200 vs 279 min., P=0.0008), whereas RUNC patients had a shorter hospital stay (median 3 vs 5 days, P=0.0004), less narcotic pain requirement (morphine equivalent, mg 104.6 vs 290, P=0.0001), and less estimated blood loss (100 vs 150 mL, P=<0.0002). There as no significant difference in the rate of reoperation between groups: RUNC 2/25 (7.6 %) vs OUNC 4/41 (9.7%) P=0.8. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the difference in indications for surgery. CONCLUSION RUNC provides excellent outcomes with shorter hospital stay, less narcotic pain requirement, and decreased blood loss when compared with the open procedure. Advantages of the robotic platform for dissection and suturing can be useful for complex minimally invasive urologic reconstructive procedures.

Laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty: Outcomes of an international multi-institutional study of 140 patients

OBJECTIVE To report an international, multi-institutional series of laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty (LESS-P) with analysis of functional outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS LESS-P cases performed between October 2007 and June 2012 at 7 institutions worldwide per individual institutional protocols, entry criteria, and techniques were included. Patient characteristics, operative indications, perioperative outcomes, and postoperative follow-up were retrospectively collected and analyzed. RESULTS The study included 140 adult patients (age 39.9 ± 15.7 years; body mass index 24.8 ± 4.2 kg/m(2); 15% with previous abdominal surgery) who underwent unilateral LESS-P, most of whom (94.3%) had dismembered reconstructions. Mean operative time was 202.1 ± 47 minutes with an estimated blood loss of 61.2 ± 44.6 mL. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery was applied in 31 patients (22.1%). A single 2-3 mm accessory port was used in 44 patients (31.4%) and a single 5-12 mm accessory port was added in 9 patients (6.4%), whereas 10 patients (7.1%) were converted to conventional multiport laparoscopy. No patients required conversion to open surgery, nor were any intraoperative complications reported. Length of hospitalization was 2.4 ± 1.6 days. The overall 90-day postoperative complication rate was 18.6%, mostly low-grade complications (Clavien I-II). With a mean follow-up of 14.0 ± 10.8 months, 93.4% had resolution of symptoms and 94.4% had radiographic evidence demonstrating resolution of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Assessment of drainage with diuretic nuclear renal scan provided evidence of improvement in 86.5% of patients on their first postoperative renal scan. CONCLUSION This study highlights the most comprehensive experience with LESS-P reported to date. Outcome measures parallel those of large published series of conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Despite these encouraging findings, longer follow-up is needed to determine the efficacy and durability of this approach for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Stone disease in living-related renal donors: long-term outcomes for transplant donors and recipients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Historically, patients wishing to donate their kidney to living related recipients were deemed ineligible if preoperative imaging demonstrated nephrolithiasis. We assess the outcomes of donors with nephrolithiasis and the outcomes of their recipients. METHODS Donors undergoing nephrectomy between 2001 and 2011 who had nephrolithiasis on preoperative computed tomography (CT) imaging or a history of stone passage were identified. A retrospective chart review documented donor and recipient demographics, donor 24-hour urine collections, stone size and location, stone events after transplant, and graft function. A seven-question telephone survey regarding development and/or presence of symptomatic nephrolithiasis was conducted. RESULTS Fifty-four donor-recipient pairs met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-eight (51.9%) patients had valid preoperative 24-hour urine collection, seven (25%) of whom had hypercalciuria. Seven (13%) patients had previous symptomatic nephrolithiasis, but no stones on imaging. Forty-one patients donated a kidney with at least one stone, with a mean stone size of 2.4 mm (range 1-6 mm). Median follow-up for donors and recipients was 22.5 months (interquartile range [IQR] 1-79.3) and 47.4 months (IQR 25.1-76.1), with 50% and 77.7% having a follow-up of more than 2 years, respectively. One donor with nephrolithiasis on preoperative imaging who donated the contralateral kidney passed a stone spontaneously after visiting the emergency department. Otherwise, no other donors or recipients experienced any stone episodes during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION The risk of clinical stone recurrence in donors and recipients is low: As such, presence of small caliceal stones should not constitute an exclusion for living-related kidney donation.

Controversies in ureteroscopy: Wire, basket, and sheath

In the last one to two decades, flexible ureteroscopy has rapidly expanded its role in the treatment of urologic stone disease. With the frequent and expanded use of flexible ureteroscopy, other ancillary instruments were developed in order to ease and facilitate this technique, such as ureteral access sheaths (UAS) and a variety of wires and baskets. These developments, along with improved surgeon ureteroscopic competence, have often brought into question the need to implement the “traditional technique” of flexible ureteroscopy. In this review, we discuss a brief history of flexible ureteroscopy, its expanded indications, and the controversy surrounding the use of UAS, wires, and baskets.