Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Luis Felipe Brandao is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Luis Felipe Brandao.


European Urology | 2014

Robotic versus laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Luis Felipe Brandao; Riccardo Autorino; Humberto Laydner; Georges Pascal Haber; Idir Ouzaid; Marco De Sio; Sisto Perdonà; Robert J. Stein; Francesco Porpiglia; Jihad H. Kaouk

CONTEXT Over the last decade, robot-assisted adrenalectomy has been included in the surgical armamentarium for the management of adrenal masses. OBJECTIVE To critically analyze the available evidence of studies comparing laparoscopic and robotic adrenalectomy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A systematic literature review was performed in August 2013 using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic search engines. Article selection proceeded according to the search strategy based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis criteria. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Nine studies were selected for the analysis including 600 patients who underwent minimally invasive adrenalectomy (277 robot assisted and 323 laparoscopic). Only one of the studies was a randomized clinical trial (RCT) but of low quality according to the Jadad scale. However, the methodological quality of included nonrandomized studies was relatively high. Body mass index was higher for the laparoscopic group (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -2.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], - 3.01 to -1.74; p<0.00001). A transperitoneal approach was mostly used for both techniques (72.5% of robotic cases and 75.5% of laparoscopic cases; p=0.27). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of conversion rate (odds ratio [OR]: 0.82; 95% CI, 0.39-1.75; p=0.61) and operative time (WMD: 5.88; 95% CI, -6.02 to 17.79; p=0.33). There was a significantly longer hospital stay in the conventional laparoscopic group (WMD: -0.43; 95% CI, -0.56 to -0.30; p<0.00001), as well as a higher estimated blood loss (WMD: -18.21; 95% CI, -29.11 to -7.32; p=0.001). There was also no statistically significant difference in terms of postoperative complication rate (OR: 0.04; 95% CI, -0.07 to -0.00; p=0.05) between groups. Most of the postoperative complications were minor (80% for the robotic group and 68% for the conventional laparoscopic group). Limitations of the present analysis are the limited sample size and including only one low-quality RCT. CONCLUSIONS Robot-assisted adrenalectomy can be performed safely and effectively with operative time and conversion rates similar to laparoscopic adrenalectomy. In addition, it can provide potential advantages of a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss, and lower occurrence of postoperative complications. These findings seem to support the use of robotics for the minimally invasive surgical management of adrenal masses.


Urology | 2014

Robotic Ileal Ureter: A Completely Intracorporeal Technique

Luis Felipe Brandao; Riccardo Autorino; Homayoun Zargar; Humberto Laydner; Jayram Krishnan; Dinesh Samarasekera; Georges-Pascal Haber; Jihad H. Kaouk; Sricharan Chalikonda; Robert J. Stein

INTRODUCTION The first laparoscopic case of ileal interposition was reported in 2000, proving the feasibility of the procedure in a minimally invasive fashion by duplicating the principles of open surgery. Robotic applications in urology are expanding worldwide, given the unique features of the robotic platform, which facilitates more advanced laparoscopic procedures. In this study, we report a case of completely intracorporeal robotic ileal ureter and thoroughly describe our technique for this complex minimally invasive procedure. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS A 50-year-old gentleman with a history of right renal stones underwent multiple right ureteroscopies and thereafter developed 2 proximal ureteral strictures of 5 mm. Preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate was 71 mL/min/1.73 m(2). Renal scan showed preserved function. The treatment options were discussed, and the patient elected to undergo a robotic ileal ureter interposition. Total operative time was 7 hours, the estimated blood loss was approximately 50 mL, and the patient progressed to regular diet on postoperative day 4 without any problem, being discharged without complications. On the postoperative day 12, a cystogram demonstrated no extravasation, and the Foley catheter was removed. After 1 month, renal scan showed the left kidney with 60.1% and the right kidney with 39.9% of total renal function. At 2 years follow-up, his serum creatinine was 1.14 and estimated glomerular filtration rate was 70 mL/min/1.73 m(2). CONCLUSION Robot-assisted laparaoscopic ileal ureter with a completely intracorporeal technique is feasible and appears to be safe. A larger number of procedures using this technique and longer follow-up are needed to further define its role in the treatment of ureteral strictures.


BJUI | 2015

Ipsilateral renal function preservation after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN): an objective analysis using mercapto-acetyltriglycine (MAG3) renal scan data and volumetric assessment.

Homayoun Zargar; Oktay Akca; Riccardo Autorino; Luis Felipe Brandao; Humberto Laydner; Jayram Krishnan; Dinesh Samarasekera; Robert J. Stein; Jihad H. Kaouk

To objectively assess ipsilateral renal function (IRF) preservation and factors influencing it after robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN).


BJUI | 2015

Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) vs laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Riccardo Autorino; Luis Felipe Brandao; Bashir R. Sankari; Homayoun Zargar; Humberto Laydner; Oktay Akca; Marco De Sio; Vincenzo Mirone; Shih-Chieh J. Chueh; Jihad H. Kaouk

The aim of this study was to provide a systematic review and meta‐analysis of reports comparing laparoendoscopic single‐site (LESS) living‐donor nephrectomy (LDN) vs standard laparoscopic LDN (LLDN). A systematic review of the literature was performed in September 2013 using PubMed, Scopus, Ovid and The Cochrane library databases. Article selection proceeded according to the search strategy based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses criteria. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) were used to measure continuous variables and odds ratios (ORs) to measure categorical ones. Nine publications meeting eligibility criteria were identified, including 461 LESS LDN and 1006 LLDN cases. There were more left‐side cases in the LESS LDN group (96.5% vs 88.6%, P < 0.001). Meta‐analysis of extractable data showed that LLDN had a shorter operative time (WMD 15.06 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.9–25.1; P = 0.003), without a significant difference in warm ischaemia time (WMD 0.41 min, 95% CI –0.02 to 0.84; P = 0.06). Estimated blood loss was lower for LESS LDN (WMD −22.09 mL, 95% CI –29.5 to –14.6; P < 0.001); however, this difference was not clinically significant. There was a greater likelihood of conversion for LESS LDN (OR 13.21, 95% CI 4.65–37.53; P < 0.001). Hospital stay was similar (WMD –0.11 days, 95% CI –0.33 to 0.12; P = 0.35), as well as the visual analogue pain score at discharge (WMD –0.31, 95% CI –0.96 to 0.35; P = 0.36), but the analgesic requirement was lower for LESS LDN (WMD –2.58 mg, 95% CI –5.01 to –0.15; P = 0.04). Moreover, there was no difference in the postoperative complication rate (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65–1.54; P = 0.99). Renal function of the recipient, as based on creatinine levels at 1 month, showed similar outcomes between groups (WMD 0.10 mg/dL, –0.09 to 0.29; P = 0.29). In conclusion, LESS LDN represents an emerging option for living kidney donation. This procedure offers comparable surgical and early functional outcomes to the conventional LLDN, with a lower analgesic requirement. However, it is more technically challenging than LLDN, as shown by a greater likelihood of conversion. The role of LESS LDN remains to be defined.


The Journal of Urology | 2014

30-Day Hospital Readmission after Robotic Partial Nephrectomy—Are We Prepared for Medicare Readmission Reduction Program?

Luis Felipe Brandao; Homayoun Zargar; Humberto Laydner; Oktay Akca; Riccardo Autorino; Oliver Ko; Dinesh Samarasekera; Jianbo Li; John Rabets; Jayram Krishnan; Georges-Pascal Haber; Jihad H. Kaouk; Robert J. Stein

PURPOSE After CMS introduced the concept of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, hospitals and health care centers became financially penalized for exceeding specific readmission rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS We retrospectively reviewed our institutional review board approved database of patients undergoing robotic partial nephrectomy at our institution and included in our analysis patients who were readmitted to any hospital as an inpatient stay within 30 days from discharge home after robotic partial nephrectomy. RESULTS From March 2006 to March 2013 a total of 627 patients underwent robotic partial nephrectomy at our center and 28 (4.46%) were readmitted within 30 days of surgery. Postoperative bleeding was responsible for 8 (28.5%) readmissions. Pulmonary embolism was reported in 3 cases and retroperitoneal abscess was diagnosed in 2. Urinary leak requiring surgical intervention developed in 2 patients, pneumonia was diagnosed in 2 and 2 patients were readmitted for chest pain. Overall 9 (32.1%) patients presented with major complications requiring intervention. On multivariable analysis Charlson comorbidity index score was the only factor significantly associated with a higher 30-day readmission rate (p = 0.03). If the Charlson score was 5 or greater the chance of hospital readmission would be 2.7 times higher. CONCLUSIONS Increased comorbidity, specifically a Charlson score of 5 or greater, was the only significant predictor of a higher incidence of 30-day readmission. This information can be useful in counseling patients regarding robotic partial nephrectomy and in determining baseline rates if CMS expands the number of conditions they evaluate for excess 30-day readmissions.


European Urology | 2014

Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Adrenalectomy: Step-by-Step Technique and Comparative Outcomes

Luis Felipe Brandao; Riccardo Autorino; Homayoun Zargar; Jayram Krishnan; Humberto Laydner; Oktay Akca; Maria Carmen Mir; Dinesh Samarasekera; Robert J. Stein; Jihad H. Kaouk

BACKGROUND Recent evidence supports the use of robotic surgery for the minimally invasive surgical management of adrenal masses. OBJECTIVE To describe a contemporary step-by-step technique of robotic adrenalectomy (RA), to provide tips and tricks to help ensure a safe and effective implementation of the procedure, and to compare its outcomes with those of laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of consecutive patients who underwent RA performed by a single surgeon between April 2010 and October 2013. LA cases performed by the same surgeon between January 2004 and May 2010 were considered the control group. SURGICAL PROCEDURE The main steps of our current surgical technique for RA are described in this video tutorial: patient positioning, port placement, and robot docking; exposure of the adrenal gland; identification and control of the adrenal vein; circumferential dissection of the adrenal gland; and specimen retrieval and closure. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Demographic parameters and main surgical outcomes were assessed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS A total of 76 cases (RA: 30; LA: 46) were included in the analysis. Median tumor size on computed tomography (CT) was significantly larger in the LA group (3cm [interquartile range (IQR): 3] vs 4cm [IQR: 3]; p=0.002). A significantly lower median estimated blood loss was recorded for the robotic group (50ml [IQR: 50] vs 100ml [IQR: 288]; p=0.02). The RA group presented five minor complications (16.7%) and one major (Clavien 3b) complication (3.3%), whereas four minor complications (8.7%) and one major (Clavien 3b) complication (2.3%) were observed in the LA group. No significant difference was noted between groups in terms of malignant histology (p=0.66) and positive margin rate (p=0.60). Distribution of pheochromocytomas in the LA group was significantly higher than in the RA group (43.5% vs 16.7%; p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS The standardization of each surgical step optimizes the RA procedure. The robotic approach can be applied for a wide range of adrenal indications, recapitulating the safety and effectiveness of open surgery and potentially improving the outcomes of standard laparoscopy. PATIENT SUMMARY In this report we detail our surgical technique for robotic removal of adrenal masses. This procedure has been standardized and can be offered to patients, with excellent outcomes.


Journal of Endourology | 2014

Perineal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: feasibility study in the cadaver model.

Humberto Laydner; Oktay Akca; Riccardo Autorino; R. Eyraud; Homayoun Zargar; Luis Felipe Brandao; Ali Khalifeh; Kamol Panumatrassamee; Jean-Alexandre Long; Wahib Isac; Robert J. Stein; Jihad H. Kaouk

PURPOSE To evaluate the feasibility of perineal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (P-RALP) in the cadaver model. METHODS The prostate was assessed by ultrasonography and cystoscopy in the lithotomy position. After incision and subcutaneous dissection, a single-port device was placed and the robot was docked. The rectourethralis muscle was divided and the levator ani fibers were split. The Denonvilliers fascia was incised and the posterior prostate and seminal vesicles were dissected. The apex was dissected and the urethra was transected. The anterior and lateral planes were dissected and the prostate pedicles were clipped. The prostate was freed from the bladder neck and the vesicourethral anastomosis was performed. The robot was undocked and the wound was sutured in layers. Cystoscopy confirmed integrity of the anastomosis. The specimen was sent for histopathology examination. RESULTS Nerve-sparing P-RALP was successfully completed in three cadavers. Median time for setting was 23 minutes. Time for posterior dissection was 15 minutes. Dissection of the apex and section of the urethra took 9 minutes. Time for anterolateral dissection was 14 minutes. Time for bladder neck dissection was 7 minutes. Vesicourethral anastomosis took 8 minutes. Total operative time was 89 minutes. The prostate capsule was grossly intact and histopathology examination was negative for prostatic tissue in all distal urethral sections and in two of three bladder neck sections. CONCLUSIONS P-RALP is feasible in the cadaver. Future studies should evaluate the feasibility of lymph node dissection through the same incision, clinical feasibility, and prospective comparisons with standard techniques.


Urology | 2014

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for ≥ 7 cm renal masses: a comparative outcome analysis.

Luis Felipe Brandao; Homayoun Zargar; Riccardo Autorino; Oktay Akca; Humberto Laydner; Dinesh Samarasekera; Jayram Krishnan; Georges-Pascal Haber; Robert J. Stein; Jihad H. Kaouk

OBJECTIVE To present our robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) experience for renal masses ≥ 7 cm and compare the surgical outcomes in this cohort with those obtained for small (≤ 4 cm) renal masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS We retrospectively reviewed our institutional review board-approved RPN database and identified patients undergoing RPN for tumors ≥ 7 cm. Surgical technique, renal function, oncologic, and pathologic data were analyzed and compared with the RPN for renal masses ≤ 4 cm. RESULTS Overall, 441 patients were identified for the purpose of this study, including 29 cases and 412 controls. Median operative time (200 vs 180 min; P = .005), warm ischemia time (26.5 vs 19 min; P <.001), and estimated blood loss (250 mL [353] vs 150 mL [150]; P <.001) were significantly lower in the control group. Postoperative complications were significantly higher in the case group (37.9% vs 15.8%; P = .005). However, the percentages of major complications (Clavien grade ≥ III) were comparable (18.2% vs 17%; P = .57 for cases and controls respectively). Postoperative blood transfusion was higher for larger tumor group (24.1% vs 4.1%; P <.001). Positive margins were similar between groups (5.9% vs 3.3%; P = .45 for cases and controls respectively). There was no difference in estimated glomerular filtration rate decline between the two groups (12.2% vs 15.8% decline; P = .98). CONCLUSION RPN represents a feasible and safe nephron-sparing surgery approach for highly selected (mostly exophytic growth pattern, polar location, and likelihood of benign histology) renal masses ≥ 7 cm in diameter.


International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery | 2015

Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in patients with previous abdominal surgery: single center experience.

Homayoun Zargar; Wahib Isac; Riccardo Autorino; Ali Khalifeh; Omar Nemer; Oktay Akca; Humberto Laydner; Luis Felipe Brandao; Robert J. Stein; Jihad H. Kaouk

The aim of this study is to report our single center experience with robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) in patients with history of previous abdominal surgery (PAS).


Urology | 2014

Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for Cystic Renal Masses: A Comparative Analysis of a Matched-paired Cohort

Oktay Akca; Homayoun Zargar; Riccardo Autorino; Luis Felipe Brandao; Humberto Laydner; Jayram Krishnan; Dinesh Samarasekera; Jianbo Li; Georges-Pascal Haber; Robert J. Stein; Jihad H. Kaouk

OBJECTIVE To compare the outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) for cystic and solid renal neoplasms. METHODS Our RPN database was queried to identify consecutive patients who underwent RPN for cystic and solid renal masses in the period between July 2007 and July 2013. Cystic renal masses were diagnosed on cross-sectional imaging (computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging). Matching was done between the patients with cystic renal masses and patients with solid renal masses (1:1 matching) by age, gender, tumor size, and nephrometry score. RESULTS Of 647 cases, 55 patients with cystic masses (group 1) were matched with 55 patients with solid tumors (group 2). There was no cyst rupture or positive surgical margin observed in group 1. The volume of resected rim of healthy renal parenchyma surrounding the tumor was the same for both groups (P=.9). There was no difference between the groups in terms of percentage of glomerular filtration rate preservation postoperatively (85% vs 86%; P=.94). There was no difference in term of overall complications between the 2 groups. Thirty patients (54.5%) in group 1 and 47 patients (85.5%) in group 2 had renal cell carcinoma (P=.0001). CONCLUSION RPN can be safely and effectively performed when treating a suspicious cystic renal neoplasm with outcomes resembling those obtained for solid masses. Thus, when a cystic renal mass in encountered, nephron-sparing surgery can be offered and RPN represents an effective tool for this approach.

Collaboration


Dive into the Luis Felipe Brandao's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Riccardo Autorino

Virginia Commonwealth University

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge