Open versus robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy: a multicenter comparison study of perioperative results and complications.

PURPOSE: To compare surgical results, morbidity and positive surgical margins rate of patients undergoing robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) versus open partial nephrectomy (OPN). METHODS: This is an observational multicenter study promoted by the "Associazione GIovani Laparoscopisti Endoscopisti" (AGILE) no-Profit Foundation, which involved six Italian urologic centers. All clinical, surgical, and pathological variables of patients treated with OPN or RPN for renal tumors were gathered in a prospectively maintained database. Tumor nephrometry was measured with PADUA score, and complications were stratified with modified Clavien system. Differences between RPN and OPN group were assessed with univariate analysis. Perioperative variables independently associated with complications were assessed with multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 198 and 105 patients were enrolled in OPN and RPN group, respectively. Both had similar demographics, indications to surgery, tumor nephrometry, renal function, WIT (18.7 vs. 18.2 min; p = NS), positive margin rate (5.6 vs. 5.7%; p = NS), intraoperative complications, and postoperative medical complications. Compared to OPN, RPN group was significantly more morbid (p = 0.04), included tumors with smaller size (p = 0.002), had longer operative time (p < 0.001), lower blood loss, surgical postoperative complications (5.7 vs. 21.2%, p < 0.001), Clavien 3-4 surgical complications (1 vs. 9.1%, p = 0.001), and shorter hospitalization. The surgical approach resulted independently correlated with surgical complications on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: In the present series, RPN was associated with a significant reduction of blood loss, surgical complications, including the reintervention rate for urinary fistula and postoperative bleeding, and with a shorter hospitalization.

[Short and medium term oncological results after robot-assisted prostatectomy: a comparative prospective non randomized study]. / Risultati oncologici a breve-medio termine dopo prostatectomia robotica: studio comparativo prospettico non randomizzato.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to compare both the perioperative and the short/medium-term post-operative oncological results after radical prostatectomy between two groups of prostate cancer patients: one group treated with radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP), the other one with robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). METHODS: We collected all the clinical, surgical, pathological and follow-up data of the patients who underwent radical prostatectomy with the two different surgical methods in a dedicated database. The positive surgical margins were defined by the presence of disease at the resection margin marked with China ink. The biochemical persistence of disease was defined as a PSA value >0.1 ng/mL 30 days after surgery, while the biochemical recurrence of the neoplasia was defined as a PSA value >0.2 ng/mL. RESULTS: The positive surgical margins (PSM) were identified as follows: 29.3% (RRP) versus 25.4% (RALP) in pT2 cancer (p 0.563), and 63.6% (RRP) versus 50.0% (RALP) in case of >pT2 cancer (p 0.559). If stratified by surgical approach, the results are: 53.3% (RRP) versus 25.6% (RALP) (p <0.001) in case of nerve-sparing technique. The persistence of disease is detectable in 5.4% (RRP) versus 4.6% (RALP), while the data on biochemical recurrence are: 2.7% (RRP) versus 0% (RALP). CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, in two groups of patients matched for clinic-pathological features who underwent RRP and RALP, oncological results are slightly better in the second group; this figure is even more significant when evaluating surgeries conducted with nerve-sparing technique. In this study we analyzed data of RALP, recently introduced in our center, comparing with RRP, a surgical technique consolidated through the decades. Therefore it can be said that even during the learning curve, RALP provides oncological results comparable to RRP.

[Sliding-clip robotic nephropexy]. / Sliding-clip robotic nephropexy.

BACKGROUND: Nephroptosis is a clinical condition characterized by an abnormal caudal movement of the kidney that descends more than 2 vertebral bodies (or more than 5 cm) during a position change from supine to upright. In the last decade, the availability of laparoscopic surgery has led to a revival of interest in nephroptosis and nephropexy. We describe our technique for transperitoneal laparoscopic robotic-assisted nephropexy. METHODS: The surgery was performed on a 78-year-old woman with a BMI of 18 and ASA 2. The diagnosis of nephroptosis was preoperatively confirmed by excretory urography in the supine and upright positions. The patient was placed in Trendelemburg position on the left side. The laparoscopic surgery was performed, through a transperitoneal approach, using the daVinci system: the ptosic kidney was fixed using two separated stiches of non-absorbable prolene 2.0 between the superior surface of the kidney and the quadratus lumborum muscle. The sutures were fixed using Hem-o-lok clips. RESULTS: Intra- or post-operative complications have not occurred. The effectiveness of treatment was demonstrated by an intravenous urography 60 days after. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted nephropexy is a safe and effective procedure that leads to both clinical and aesthetic excellent results, comparable to the ones obtained with the laparoscopic approach for the treatment of symptomatic renal ptosis. The robotic-assisted nephropexy appears to be easier, with the particular advantages of the intracorporeal suturing and a better intraoperative view; the sliding-clips method allows reducing the organ trauma to the minimum.