R. Eyraud

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

CONTEXT Centres worldwide have been performing partial nephrectomies laparoscopically for greater than a decade. With the increasing use of robotics, many centres have reported their early experiences using it for nephron-sparing surgery. OBJECTIVE To review published literature comparing robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION An online systematic review of the literature according to Cochrane guidelines was conducted from 2000 to 2012 including studies comparing RPN and LPN. All studies comparing RPN with LPN were included. The outcome measures were the patient demographics, tumour size, operating time, warm ischaemic time, blood loss, transfusion rates, length of hospital stay, conversion rates, and complications. A meta-analysis of the results was conducted. For continuous data, a Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test was used; for dichotomous data, an inverse variance was used. Each was expressed as a risk ratio with a 95% confidence interval p<0.05 considered significant. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS A total of 717 patients were included, 313 patients in the robotic group and 404 patients in the laparoscopic group (seven studies). There was no significant difference between the two groups in any of the demographic parameters except for age (age: p=0.006; sex: p=0.54; laterality: p=0.05; tumour size: p=0.62, tumour location: p=57; or confirmed malignant final pathology: p=0.79). There was no difference between the two groups regarding operative times (p=0.58), estimated blood loss (p=0.76), or conversion rates (p=0.84). The RPN group had significantly less warm ischaemic time than the LPN group (p=0.0008). There was no difference regarding postoperative length of hospital stay (p=0.37), complications (p=0.86), or positive margins (p=0.93). CONCLUSIONS In early experience, RPN appears to be a feasible and safe alternative to its laparoscopic counterpart with decreased warm ischaemia times noted.

Comparative Outcomes and Assessment of Trifecta in 500 Robotic and Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy Cases: A Single Surgeon Experience

PURPOSE We report a comparative analysis of a large series of laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomies performed by a high volume single surgeon at a tertiary care institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS We retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of 500 patients treated with minimally invasive partial nephrectomy by a single surgeon between March 2002 and February 2012. Demographic and perioperative data were collected and statistically analyzed. R.E.N.A.L. (radius, exophytic/endophytic properties, nearness of tumor to the collecting system or sinus in mm, anterior/posterior and location relative to polar lines) nephrometry score was used to score tumors. Those scored as moderate and high complexity were designated as complex. Trifecta was defined as a combination of warm ischemia time less than 25 minutes, negative surgical margins and no perioperative complications. RESULTS Two groups were identified, including 261 patients with robotic and 231 with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Demographics were similar in the groups. The robotic group was significantly more morbid (Charlson comorbidity index 3.75 vs 1.26), included more complex tumors (R.E.N.A.L. score 5.98 vs 7.2), and had lower operative (169.9 vs 191.7 minutes) and warm ischemia (17.9 vs 25.2 minutes) time, intraoperative (2.6% vs 5.6%, each p <0.001) and postoperative (24.53% vs 32.03%, p = 0.004) complications, and positive margin rate (2.9% vs 5.6%, p <0.001). Thus, a higher overall trifecta rate was observed for robotic partial nephrectomy (58.7% vs 31.6%, p <0.001). The laparoscopic group had longer followup (3.43 vs 1.51 years, p <0.001) and no significant difference in postoperative changes in renal function. Main study limitations were the retrospective nature, arbitrary definition of trifecta and shorter followup in the RPN group. CONCLUSIONS Our large comparative analysis shows that robotic partial nephrectomy offers a wider range of indications, better operative outcomes and lower perioperative morbidity than laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Overall, the quest for trifecta seems to be better accomplished by robotic partial nephrectomy, which is likely to become the new standard for minimally invasive partial nephrectomy.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for Complex Tumors: Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes

BACKGROUND Recent studies showed that robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) offered outcomes at least comparable to those of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). LPN can be particularly challenging for more complex tumors. OBJECTIVE To compare the perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing LPN or RPN for a single renal mass of moderate or high complexity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A retrospective analysis was performed for 381 consecutive patients who underwent either LPN (n = 182) or RPN (n = 199) between 2005 and 2011 for a complex renal mass (RENAL score ≥ 7). Perioperative outcomes were compared. Predictors of postoperative renal function were assessed using multivariable linear regression analysis. INTERVENTION LPN or RPN. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Perioperative outcomes were compared. Predictors of postoperative renal function were assessed using multivariable linear regression analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to patient age, gender, side, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), or tumor size. Patients undergoing LPN had a slightly lower body mass index (29.2 kg/m(2) compared with 30.7 kg/m(2), p = 0.02) and preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (81.1 compared with 86.0 ml/min per 1.73 m(2), p = 0.02). LPN was associated with an increased rate of conversion to radical nephrectomy (RN) (11.5% compared with 1%, p<0.001) and a higher decrease in percentage of eGFR (-16.0% compared with -12.6%, p = 0.03). There were no significant differences with respect to warm ischemia time (WIT), estimated blood loss, transfusion rate, or postoperative complications. WIT, preoperative eGFR, and CCI were found to be predictors of postoperative eGFR in multivariable analysis. No difference in perioperative outcomes was found between moderate and high RENAL score subgroups. The retrospective study design was the main limitation of this study. CONCLUSIONS RPN provides functional outcomes comparable to those of LPN for moderate- to high-complexity tumors, but with a significantly lower risk of conversion to RN. This situation is likely because of the technical advantages offered by the articulated robotic instruments. A prospective randomized study is needed to confirm these findings.

Three-year Oncologic and Renal Functional Outcomes After Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer in African American Men: A Multi-institutional Experience

OBJECTIVE To compare the outcomes of active surveillance (AS) series between African American men (AAM) and non-AAM diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer at 3 medical centers. METHODS Between 2005 and 2012, 214 men accepted AS on the basis of favorable clinical features and parameters after initial and repeat biopsy. Failure was defined as increase in Gleason score >6, total positive cores >33%, maximum cancer volume in any core >50%, or a prostate-specific antigen >10 ng/mL. Disease progression and overall AS failure were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS Of 214 men, 75 were excluded, leaving 67 AAM and 72 non-AAM on AS. Median age at diagnosis was 64 and 67 years for AAM and non-AAM, respectively, and median follow-up was 34 and 46 months, respectively. During this time, 44 AAM (66%) remained on AS, and 23 (34%) underwent treatment, of whom 6 (26%) were treated by patient choice and 17 (74%) because of disease progression. In the non-AAM group, 59 (82%) men remained on AS, and 13 (18%) underwent treatment, 8 (62%) were treated by patient choice and 5 (38%) because of disease progression. The 3-year freedom from overall treatment was 74% and did not differ by race (P = .06). The 3-year freedom from disease progression was 85%, where AAM were at significantly higher risk of disease progression (hazard ratio = 3.8; 95% confidence interval: 1.4-10.4; P = .01). CONCLUSION Our study suggests a higher disease progression rate in AAM who choose AS for low-risk prostate cancer compared with non-AAM, signifying a potential need for closer follow-up and more stringent enrollment criteria in AAM.

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

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.