A three-dimensional, anatomy-based nephrometry score to guide nephron-sparing surgery for renal sinus tumors.

BACKGROUND: A quantitative nephrometry scoring system specifically for renal sinus tumors will assist in classifying surgical complexity and treatment planning. METHODS: By using preoperative computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and 3-dimensional image reconstruction, 5 critical components were assessed: the ratio of the sinus area occupied by the tumor in relation to the whole sinus area (R), the compression of the renal segmental vessels or collection system by the tumor (O), the anteroposterior relation of the tumor relative to the segmental vessels or collection system (A), the tumor diameter (D), and whether the tumor affects a solitary kidney (S) ("ROADS"). The ROADS score, indicating low, moderate, or high surgical complexity, was then used to guide surgical strategy planning, including cooling techniques, surgical approaches, and parenchyma incision techniques. A cohort of 134 patients with renal sinus tumors was treated based on their ROADS score and was retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: The authors successfully performed 113 nephron-sparing surgeries and 21 radical nephrectomies with a complication rate of 7.9%. During follow-up, 3 cases were classified according to surgical margin status because they lacked an intact tumor capsule. There was only 1 case of local recurrence, and there were no cases of metastasis. A high ROADS score was correlated with greater operative complexity, such as longer operation and ischemia times and higher estimated blood loss and complication rates. However, renal function and short-term oncologic outcomes were not related to the score. CONCLUSIONS: The ROADS scoring system provides a standardized, quantitative, 3-dimensional anatomic classification to guide surgical strategy in renal sinus tumors.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Retroperitoneal Lymph node Dissection for Clinical Stage I Non-seminomatous Germ Cell Tumor of Testis: A Comparative Analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the treatment outcomes of robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (R-RPLND) versus laparoscopic RPLND (L-RPLND) for clinical stage I non-seminomatous germ cell testicular tumors (NSGCTs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients with stage I NSGCTs who underwent robotic or laparoscopic RPLND between 2008 and 2017. Perioperative data and oncologic outcomes were reviewed and compared between the two groups. Progression-free survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and compared between two groups. RESULTS: A total of 31 and 28 patients underwent R-RPLND and L-RPLND respectively. The preoperative characteristics of the patients were comparable in the two groups. Patients in R-RPLND group had significantly shorter median operative time (140 vs. 175 minutes, P < .001), a shorter median duration to surgical drain removal (2 vs. 4 days, P = .002) and a shorter median postoperative hospital stay (5 vs. 6 days, P = .001). There were no statistical differences in intra- and post-operative complication rate between the groups and the oncologic outcomes were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: In expert hands, R-RPLND and L-RPLND were comparable in oncological parameter and morbidity rate; R-RPLND showed superiority in operation duration, median days to surgical drain removal and postoperative hospital stay for stage I NSGCTs. Multicenter and randomized studies with good power of study and sufficient follow-up duration are required to validate our result.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty as management for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a comparison study with primary pyeloplasty.

BACKGROUND: To analyze the perioperative parameters and outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) and compare them with our series of RALP for primary UPJO. Secondary pyeloplasty can be a challenging procedure because of ureteral devascularization, fibrosis and dense stricture formation. Robotic approach could be adjunct to these repairs. METHODS: Between August 2015 to March 2019, 96 patients in our hospital underwent RALP, with 32 patients as secondary intervention for recurrent UPJO. We compared the perioperative parameters of RALP for both primary UPJO and recurrent UPJO. Patient demographics, perioperative parameters, postoperative outcomes and complications from both groups were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: RALP was successfully performed for all cases in both groups. The median operating time was longer for secondary RALP than for primary RALP [125 (108.5-155) vs. 151 (120-190) minutes, P=0.004]. There were no conversions to open surgery or significant perioperative complications. No difference in blood loss, transfusion rate and perioperative complication rates was noted between the two groups. The success rates were 98.44% (63/64) and 96.88% (31/32) at a median follow up of 32 and 20 months (P=0.001) for the primary and secondary groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Secondary RALP is associated with significantly longer operative time as compared to primary RALP, especially during the exposure of the UPJO, however it is a safe surgical modality for recurrent UPJO with durable outcome. RALP should be an alternative treatment modality for recurrent UPJO whenever the facility and expert are available.