'Trifecta' outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in solitary kidney: a Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative (VCQI) database analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) in patients with a solitary kidney in a large multi-institutional database. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 2755 patients in the Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative database underwent RAPN by 22 surgeons at 14 centres in nine countries. Of these patients, 74 underwent RAPN with a solitary kidney between 2007 and 2016. We retrospectively analysed the functional and oncological outcomes of these 74 patients. A 'trifecta' of outcomes was assessed, with trifecta defined as a warm ischaemia time (WIT) of <20 min, negative surgical margins, and no complications intraoperatively or within 3 months of RAPN. RESULTS: All 74 patients underwent RAPN successfully with one conversion to radical nephrectomy. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) operative time was 180 (142-230) min. Early unclamping was used in 11 (14.9%) patients and zero ischaemia was used in 12 (16.2%). Trifecta outcomes were achieved in 38 of 66 patients (57.6%). The median (IQR) WIT was 15.5 (8.75-20.0) min for the entire cohort. The overall complication rate was 24.1% and the rate of Clavien-Dindo grade ≤II complications was 16.3%. Positive surgical margins were present in four cases (5.4%). The median (IQR) follow-up was 10.5 (2.12-24.0) months. The median drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate at 3 months was 7.0 mL/min/1.72 m2 (11.01%). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that RAPN is a safe and effective treatment option for select renal tumours in solitary kidneys in terms of a trifecta of negative surgical margins, WIT of <20 min, and low operative and perioperative morbidity.

Omission of Cortical Renorrhaphy During Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: A Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative Database Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the outcomes of patients in whom cortical (outer) renorrhaphy (CR) was omitted during robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). METHODS: We analyzed 1453 patients undergoing RPN, from 2006 to 2018, within a large multi-institutional database. Patients having surgery for bilateral tumors (n = 73) were excluded. CR and no-CR groups were compared in terms of operative and ischemia time, estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, surgical margins, hospital stay, change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and need of angioembolization. Inverse probability of treatment weighting with Firth correction for center code was performed to account for selection bias. RESULTS: CR was omitted in 120 patients (8.7%); 1260 (91.3%) patients underwent both inner layer and CR. There was no difference in intraoperative complications (7.4% CR; 8.9% no-CR group; P = .6), postoperative major complications (1% and 2.8% in CR and no-CR groups, respectively; P = .2), or median drop in eGFR (7.3 vs 10.4 mL/min/m2). The no-CR group had a higher incidence of minor complications (26.7% vs 5.5% in CR group; P < .001). EBL was 100 mL (IQR 50-200) in both groups (P = .6). Angioembolization was needed in 0.7% patients in CR vs 1.4% in no-CR group (P = .4). Additionally, there was no difference in median operative time (168 vs 162 min; P = .2) or ischemia time (18 vs 17 min; P = .7). CONCLUSION: In selected patients with renal masses, single layer renorrhaphy does not significantly improve operative time, ischemia time, or eGFR after RPN. There is a higher incidence of minor complications, but not major perioperative complications after no-CR technique.

Robotic Donor Nephrectomy: The Right Way Forward.

Donor nephrectomy is an extremely challenging procedure. The stakes are high, as two lives-the donor and the recipient-depend on it. Robotic donor nephrectomy has an edge over a laparoscopic approach.

Learning Curves and Timing of Surgical Trials: Robotic Kidney Transplantation with Regional Hypothermia.

PURPOSE: Outcomes of surgical procedures can be affected by multiple factors including surgical skill and learning curve (LC). These factors need to be considered for optimal timing of surgical trials. We used the LC cumulative summation (CUSUM) method to describe the number of cases associated with competency of a single surgeon learning the technique of robotic kidney transplantation (RKT). METHODS: Thirty-three patients underwent Vattikuti Urology Institute technique of RKT at a center that recently adopted this procedure (study group). Anastomoses times and short-term functional outcomes were compared with an established RKT program (reference group). LCs were evaluated using CUSUM analysis using target values from the reference group. RESULTS: Mean ± standard deviation for console time, rewarming time (RWT), arterial anastomosis, venous anastomosis, and ureterovesical anastomosis times for the study group was 187 ± 34.6 minutes, 58.03 ± 17.81 minutes, 19.36 ± 5.91 minutes, 21.97 ± 6.78 minutes, and 22.55 ± 4.24 minutes, respectively, significantly longer than reference group (p < 0.001 for all). Mean ± standard deviation for serum creatinine at discharge and 1 month in the study group was 1.43 ± 0.57 mg/dL and 1.23 ± 0.35 mg/dL, respectively, similar to the reference group (p = 0.074 at discharge and p = 0.163 at 1 month). The LC was short, with competence achieved for RWT within 9, proficiency within 16, and mastery within 21 cases. Longer anastomosis times during the LC did not affect graft function. CONCLUSIONS: The LC of RKT is short, with improving skill up to 20-25 cases. The procedure is reproducible by surgeons experienced with open transplant and robotic surgery for other procedures, with comparable outcomes and low complication rates at a new center during adoption.

Retroperitoneal vs Transperitoneal Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy: Comparison in a Multi-institutional Setting.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) against transperitoneal approach in a multi-institutional prospective database, after accounting for potential selection bias that may affect this comparison. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Post-hoc analysis of the prospective arm of the Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative database from 2014 to 2018. Six hundred and ninety consecutive patients underwent RAPN by 22 surgeons at 14 centers in 9 countries. Patients who had surgery at centers not performing retroperitoneal approach (n = 197) were excluded. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was done to account for potential selection bias by adjusting for age, gender, body mass index, comorbidities, side of surgery, location/size/complexity of tumor, renal function, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and year of surgery. Operative and perioperative outcomes were compared between weighted transperitoneal and retroperitoneal cohorts. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients underwent retroperitoneal RAPN; 394 underwent transperitoneal RAPN. Hospital stay in days-median 3.0 (Interquartile range [IQR] 2.0-4.0) transperitoneal vs 1.0 (1.0-3.0) retroperitoneal; P < .001, and blood loss in mL-125 (50-250) transperitoneal vs 100 (50-150) retroperitoneal; P = .007-were lower in the retroperitoneal group. There were no differences in operative time (P = .6), warm ischemia time (P = .6), intraoperative complications (P = .99), conversion to radical nephrectomy (P = .6), postoperative major complications (P = .6), positive surgical margins (P = .95), or drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (P = .7). CONCLUSION: In a multi-institutional setting, both retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approach to RAPN have comparable operative and perioperative outcomes, except for shorter hospital stay with the retroperitoneal approach.

Conversion of Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy to Radical Nephrectomy: A Prospective Multi-institutional Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence and factors affecting conversion from robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) to radical nephrectomy. METHODS: Between November 2014 and February 2017, 501 patients underwent attempted RAPN by 22 surgeons at 14 centers in 9 countries within the Vattikuti Collaborative Quality Initiative database. Patients were permanently logged for RAPN prior to surgery and were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Multivariable logistic regression with backward stepwise selection of variables was done to assess the factors associated with conversion to radical nephrectomy. RESULTS: Overall conversion rate was 25 of 501 (5%). Patients converted to radical nephrectomy were older (median age [interquartile range] 66.0 [61.0-74.0] vs 59.0 [50.0-68.0], P = .012), had higher body mass index (BMI) (median 32.8 [24.9-40.9] vs 27.8 [24.6-31.5] kg/m2, P = .031), higher age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity score (median 6.0 [4.0-7.0] vs 4.0 [3.0-5.0], P <.001), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score (score ≥3; 13/25 (52.0%) vs 130/476 (27.3%), P = .021), Preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (P = .141), clinical tumor stage (P = .145), tumor location (P = .140), multifocality (P = .483), and RENAL (radius, exophytic/endophytic properties, nearness of tumor to the collecting system or sinus in millimeters, and anterior/posterior location relative to polar lines) nephrometry score (P = .125) were not significantly different between the groups. On multivariable analysis, independent predictors for conversion were BMI (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]; 1.070 [1.018-1.124]; P = .007) and Charlson score (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]; 1.459 [1.179-1.806]; P = .001). CONCLUSION: RAPN was associated with a low rate of conversion. Independent predictors of conversion were BMI and Charlson score. Tumor factors such as clinical stage, location, multifocality, or RENAL score were not associated with increased risk of conversion.

Preoperative Predictors of Extraprostatic Extension of Prostate Cancer (pT3a) in a Contemporary Indian Cohort.

We present our experience with robotic radical prostatectomy and analyse the predictors for extracapsular extension (EPE) in a cohort of Indian patients. Four hundred fifty-three patients underwent robotic radical prostatectomy from May 2010 to October 2015. Post hoc analysis of prospectively maintained data was done. Multivariable regression analysis was used on variables which had significant association with EPE on univariable analysis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted for the independent predictors of EPE. Mean age was 64.62 ± 6.44 years. Mean BMI 26.03 ± 4.01 kg/m2. Median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 13.38 ng/ml (IQR 8.1-23.5). Seventy-seven (16.99%) patients had Gleason >7. Mean core positivity (percentage of cores positive) was 48,93 ± 27.29% and mean maximum percentage of tumour in a core was 33,04 ± 31.16%. Positive surgical margins were present in 141/453 (31.15%). Lymph nodes were positive in 21.2% of those who had nodes removed (77/364). Maximum cancer in a core (p < 0.001), core positivity (p = 0.002) and Gleason score ≥4 + 3 (p = 0.028) were significant predictors of EPE, independent of BMI, PSA, PNI and clinical stage. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis for core positivity showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.775, and a 76% core positivity predicted EPE with a sensitivity of 65% and a specificity of 87.1%, respectively. ROC curve for maximum cancer in a core showed an area under the curve of 0.898. Seventy per cent cancer in a single core predicted EPE with a sensitivity of 80.6% and a specificity of 85.9% Indian patients present with more advanced disease, higher PSA and have higher incidence of EPE. Maximum cancer in a core, ratio of positive cores and Gleason score ≥4 + 3 are predictors of EPE independent of PSA and clinical stage.

Suprapubic transvesical single-port technique for control of lower end of ureter during laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper tract transitional cell carcinoma.

CONTEXT: Various minimally invasive techniques - laparoscopic, endoscopic or combinations of both - have been described to handle the lower ureter during laparoscopic nephroureterectomy but none has received wide acceptance. AIMS: We describe an endoscopic technique for the management of lower end of ureter during laparoscopic nephroureterectomy using a single suprapubic laparoscopic port. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Transurethral resectoscope is used to make a full thickness incision in the bladder cuff around the ureteric orifice from 1 o'clock to 11 o'clock. A grasper inserted through the transvesical suprapubic port is used to retract the ureter to complete the incision in the bladder cuff overlying the anterior aspect of the ureteric orifice. The lower end of ureter is subsequently sealed with a clip applied through the port. This is followed by a laparoscopic nephrectomy and the specimen is removed by extending the suprapubic port incision. Our technique enables dissection and control of lower end of ureter under direct vision. Moreover, surgical occlusion of the lower end of the ureter prior to dissection of the kidney may decrease cell spillage. The clip also serves as a marker for complete removal of the specimen. RESULTS: Three patients have undergone this procedure with an average follow up of 19 months. Operative time for the management of lower ureter has been 35, 55 and 40 minutes respectively. A single recurrence was detected on the opposite bladder wall after 9 months via a surveillance cystoscopy. There has been no residual disease or any other locoregional recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: The described technique for management of lower end of ureter during laparoscopic nephroureterectomy adheres to strict oncologic principles while providing the benefit of a minimally invasive approach.