Transperitoneal Versus Retroperitoneal Single-port Robotic-assisted Partial Nephrectomy: An Analysis from the Single Port Advanced Research Consortium.

BACKGROUND: In the surgical management of kidney tumors, such as in multiport technology, single-port (SP) robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) can be performed using the transperitoneal (TP) or retroperitoneal (RP) approach. However, there is a dearth of literature on the efficacy and safety of either approach for SP RAPN. OBJECTIVE: To compare the peri- and postoperative outcomes of the TP and RP approaches for SP RAPN. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a retrospective cohort study using data from the Single Port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC) database of five institutions. All patients underwent SP RAPN for a renal mass between 2019 and 2022. INTERVENTION: TP versus RP SP RAPN. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Baseline characteristics, and peri- and postoperative outcomes were compared between both the approaches using χ2 test, Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Student t test. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 219 patients (121 [55.25%] TP, 98 [44.75%] RP) were included in the study. Of them, 115 (51.51%) were male, and the mean age was 60 ± 11 yr. RP had a significantly higher proportion of posterior tumors (54 [55.10%] RP vs 28 [23.14%] TP, p < 0.001), while other baseline characteristics were comparable between both the approaches. There was no statistically significant difference in ischemia time (18 ± 9 vs 18 ± 11 min, p = 0.898), operative time (147 ± 67 vs 146 ± 70 min, p = 0.925), estimated blood loss (p = 0.167), length of stay (1.06 ± 2.25 vs 1.33 ± 1.05 d, p = 0.270), overall complications (5 [5.10%] vs 7 [5.79%]), and major complication rate (2 [2.04%] vs 2 [1.65%], p = 1.000). No difference was observed in positive surgical margin rate (p = 0.472) or delta eGFR at median 6-mo follow-up (p = 0.273). Limitations include retrospective design and no long-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: With proper patient selection based on patient and tumor characteristics, surgeons can opt for either the TP or the RP approach for SP RAPN, and maintain satisfactory outcomes. PATIENT SUMMARY: The use of a single port (SP) is a novel technology for performing robotic surgery. Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is a surgery to remove a portion of the kidney due to kidney cancer. Depending on patient characteristics and surgeons' preference, SP can be performed via two approaches for RAPN: through the abdomen or through the space behind the abdominal cavity. We compared outcomes between these two approaches for patients receiving SP RAPN, finding that they were comparable. We conclude that with proper patient selection based on patient and tumor characteristics, surgeons can opt for either the TP or the RP approach for SP RAPN, and maintain satisfactory outcomes.

Transperitoneal Versus Retroperitoneal Robotic-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy in Patients with Obesity.

Introduction: We aim to compare transperitoneal (TP) and retroperitoneal (RP) robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) in obese patients. Obesity and RP fat can complicate RPN, especially in the RP approach where working space is limited. Materials and Methods: Using a multi-institutional database, we analyzed 468 obese patients undergoing RPN for a renal mass (86 [18.38%] RP, 382 [81.62%] TP). Obesity was defined as body mass index ≥30 kg/m2*. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed adjusting for age, previous abdominal surgery, tumor size, R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score, tumor location, surgical date, and participating centers. Baseline characteristics and perioperative and postoperative data were compared. Results: In the propensity score-matched cohort, 79 (50%) TP patients were matched with 79 (50%) RP patients. The RP group had more posterior tumors (67 [84.81%], RP versus 23 [29.11%], TP; P < .001), while the other baseline characteristics were comparable. Warm ischemia time (interquartile range; 15 [10, 12], RP versus 14 [10, 17] minutes, TP; P = .216), operative time (129 [116, 165], RP versus 130 [95, 180] minutes, TP; P = .687), estimated blood loss (50 [50, 100], RP versus 75 [50, 150] mL, TP; P = .129), length of stay (1 [1, 1], RP versus 1 [1, 2] day, TP; P = .319), and major complication rate (1 [1.27%], RP versus 3 [3.80%], TP; P = .620) were similar. No significant difference was observed in positive surgical margin rate and delta estimated glomerular filtration at follow-up. Conclusion: TP and RP RPN yielded similar perioperative and postoperative outcomes in obese patients. Obesity should not be a factor in determining optimal approach for RPN.

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors: Analysis of a large multi-institutional database.

INTRODUCTION: Highly complex renal masses pose a challenge to urologic surgeons' ability to perform robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). Given the increased utilization of the robotic approach for small renal masses, we sought to characterize the outcomes and determine the safety and feasibility of RPN for complex renal masses from our large multi-institutional cohort. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with R.E.N.A.L. Nephrometry Scores ≥10 who underwent RPN in our multi-institutional cohort (N = 372). Baseline demographic, clinical and tumor related characteristics were evaluated with the primary endpoint of trifecta achievement (defined as negative surgical margin, no major complications, and warm ischemia time ≤25 min). Relationships between variables were assessed using the chi-square test of independence, Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Kruskal Wallis test. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationship between baseline characteristics and trifecta achievement. RESULTS: Of 372 patients in the study, mean age was 58 years, and median BMI was 30.49 kg/m2. The median tumor size was 4.3 cm (3.0-5.9 cm). Most of the patients had R.E.N.A.L. scores of 10 (n = 253; 67.01%). Overall, trifecta was achieved in 72.04% of patients. Stratifying intraoperative and postoperative outcomes by R.E.N.A.L. scores, there was no significant difference in trifecta achievement, operative time, warm ischemia time (WIT), open conversion, major complication, or positive margin rates. Length of hospital stay was significantly longer for higher R.E.N.A.L. scores (median days 2 vs. 1, P = 0.012). Multivariate analyses for factors associated with trifecta achievement concluded that age and baseline eGFR were independently associated with trifecta achievement. CONCLUSION: RPN is a safe and reproducible procedure for complex tumors with R.E.N.A.L. Nephrometry scores ≥10. Our results suggest excellent rates of trifecta achievement and short-term functional outcomes when performed by experienced surgeons. Long-term oncological and functional evaluation are needed to further support this conclusion.

Off-clamp Versus On-clamp Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Propensity-matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Partial nephrectomy is the preferred treatment option for the management of small renal masses. On-clamp partial nephrectomy is associated with a risk of ischemia and a greater loss of postoperative renal function, while the off-clamp procedure decreases the duration of renal ischemia, leading to better renal function preservation. However, the efficacy of the off- versus on-clamp partial nephrectomy for renal function preservation remains debatable. OBJECTIVE: To compare perioperative and functional outcomes following off- and on-clamp robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study used the prospective multinational collaborative Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative (VCQI) database for RAPN. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary objective of this study was the comparison of perioperative and functional outcomes between patients who underwent off- and on-clamp RAPN. Propensity scores were calculated for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), renal nephrometry score (RNS) and preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 2114 patients, 210 had undergone off-clamp RAPN and others on-clamp procedure. Propensity matching was possible for 205 patients in a 1:1 ratio. After matching, the two groups were comparable for age, sex, BMI, tumor size, multifocality, tumor side, face of tumor, RNS, polar location of the tumor, surgical access, and preoperative hemoglobin, creatinine, and eGFR. There was no difference between the two groups for intraoperative (4.8% vs 5.3%, p = 0.823) and postoperative (11.2% vs 8.3%, p = 0.318) complications. Need for blood transfusion (2.9% vs 0, p = 0.030) and conversion to radical nephrectomy (10.2% vs 1%, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the off-clamp group. At the last follow-up, there was no difference between the two groups for creatinine and eGFR. The mean fall in eGFR at the last follow-up compared with that at baseline was equivalent between the two groups (-16.0 vs -17.3 ml/min, p = 0.985). CONCLUSIONS: Off-clamp RAPN does not result in better renal functional preservation. Alternatively, it may be associated with increased rates of conversion to radical nephrectomy and need for blood transfusion. PATIENT SUMMARY: With this multicentric study, we noted that performing robotic partial nephrectomy without clamping the blood supply to the kidney is not associated with better preservation of renal function. However, off-clamp partial nephrectomy is associated with increased rates of conversion to radical nephrectomy and blood transfusion.

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in morbidly obese patients: a VCQI database study.

To compare perioperative outcomes following robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) in patients with morbid obesity (body mass index (BMI > 40 kg/m2)) and non-obese patients. Using the Vattikuti Collective quality initiative (VCQI) database for RAPN, data for morbidly obese and non-obese patients was obtained. Propensity scores were calculated for two treatment groups (morbidly obese vs. non-obese) for the following variables i.e. age, sex, tumor size, RNS, surgical access (retroperitoneal/transperitoneal) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to ensure comparability. The primary outcome for the study was comparison of trifecta between the two groups. In this study, 158 morbidly obese patients were matched with 158 non-obese patients undergoing RAPN. Two groups matched well for age, sex, tumor size, eGFR and RNS. There was no difference between two groups for ischemia time, blood loss, blood transfusion, conversion to radical nephrectomy, length of stay, intraoperative and postoperative complications. Operative time was longer in morbidly obese patients (median 210 min vs. 120 min, p = 0.000). On pathological analysis, malignant tumors were more likely in the morbidly obese group (83.1% vs.73.4%, p = 0.018). Trifecta outcomes were comparable between the two groups (60.1% vs. 63.3%, p = 0.563). The Median duration of follow-up was 12 months (1-96 months). The morbidly obese group had significantly higher day one creatinine (1.25 ± 0.7 vs. 1.07 ± 0.37, p = 0.001) and significantly lower day one eGFR (62.1 ± 19 vs. 69.2 ± 21, p = 0.018). However, there was no difference between the two groups for the last follow-up creatinine and eGFR. RAPN in morbidly obese patients is associated with equivalent perioperative outcomes compared to non-obese patients.

Operative and oncological outcomes of salvage robotic radical and partial nephrectomy: a multicenter experience.

We aim to describe the perioperative and oncological outcomes for salvage robotic partial nephrectomy (sRPN) and salvage robotic radical nephrectomy (sRRN). Using a prospectively maintained multi-institutional database, we compared baseline clinical characteristics and perioperative and postoperative outcomes, including pathological stage, tumor histology, operative time, ischemia time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), postoperative complication rate, recurrence rate, and mortality. We identified a total of 58 patients who had undergone robotic salvage surgery for a recurrent renal mass, of which 22 (38%) had sRRN and 36 (62%) had sRPN. Ischemia time for sRPN was 14 min. The median EBL was 100 mL in both groups (p = 0.581). One intraoperative complication occurred during sRRN, while three occurred during sRPN cases (p = 1.000). The median LOS was 2 days for sRRN and 1 day for sRPN (p = 0.039). Postoperatively, one major complication occurred after sRRN and two after sRPN (p = 1.000). The recurrence reported after sRRN was 5% and 3% after sRPN. Among the patients who underwent sRRN, the two most prevalent stages were pT1a (27%) and pT3a (27%). Similarly, the two most prevalent stages in sRPN patients were pT1a (69%) and pT3a (6%). sRRN and sRPN have similar operative and perioperative outcomes. sRPN is a safe and feasible procedure when performed by experienced surgeons. Future studies on large cohorts are essential to better characterize the importance and benefit of salvage partial nephrectomies.

The State of Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: Operative, Functional, and Oncological Outcomes From A Robust Multi-Institution Collaborative.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the most recent surgical, functional, and oncological outcomes of RPN utilizing one of the largest, prospectively maintained, multi-institution consortium of patients undergoing robotic renal surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was obtained from a prospectively maintained multi-institutional database of patients who underwent RPN for clinically localized kidney cancer between 2018 and 2022 by 9 high-volume surgeons. Demographic and tumor characteristics as well as operative, functional, and oncological outcomes were queried. RESULTS: A total of 2836 patients underwent RPN. Intraoperative, postoperative, and 30-day major complication rates were 2.68%, 11.39%, and 3.24%, respectively. Median tumor size was 3.0 cm. Tumors with low complexity had a shorter median operative time, lower median EBL, shorter median ischemia time, lower postoperative complication rate, and lower decline in renal function There was no significant difference between tumor complexities with respect to the rate of conversion to radical nephrectomy, conversion to open, major complications, and positive margins. Lower BMI, smaller clinical tumor size, lower tumor complexity, and higher baseline eGFR were significantly associated with trifecta achievement. CONCLUSION: Patient BMI, baseline eGFR, and tumor characteristics such as size and complexity are the most important predictors of trifecta achievement. Patients with complex tumors should be counseled that they are at increased risk of complications and worsening renal function after robotic partial nephrectomy.

A comparison of outcomes between transperitoneal and retroperitoneal robotic assisted partial nephrectomy in patients with completely endophytic kidney tumors.

INTRODUCTION: Retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) has been shown to have comparable outcomes to the transperitoneal approach for renal tumors. However, this may not be true for completely endophytic tumors as they pose significant challenges in RPN with increased complication rates. Hence, we sought to compare the safety and feasibility of retroperitoneal RPN to transperitoneal RPN for completely endophytic tumors. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent RPN for a completely endophytic renal mass using either transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach from our multi-institutional database (n = 177). Patients who had a solitary kidney, prior ipsilateral surgery, multiple/bilateral tumors, and horseshoe kidneys were excluded from the analysis. Overall, 156 patients were evaluated (112 [71.8%] transperitoneal, 44 [28.2%] retroperitoneal). Baseline characteristics, perioperative and postoperative data were compared between the surgical transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach using Chi-square test, Fishers exact test, t test, Mood median test and Mann Whitney U test. RESULTS: Of the 156 patients in this study, 86 (56.9%) were male and the mean (SD) age was 58 (13) years. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 approaches. Compared to transperitoneal approach, retroperitoneal approach had similar ischemia time (19.6 [SD = 7.6] minutes vs. 19.5 [SD = 10.2] minutes, P = 0.952), operative time (157.5 [SD = 44.8] minutes vs. 160.2 [SD = 47.3] minutes, P = 0.746), median estimated blood loss (50 ml [IQR: 50, 150] vs. 100 ml [IQR: 50, 200], P = 0.313), median length of stay (1 [IQR: 1, 2] day vs. 1 [IQR: 1, 2] day, P = 0.126) and major complication rate (2 [4.6%] vs. 3 [2.7%], P = 0.621). No difference was observed in positive surgical margin rate (P = 0.1.00), delta eGFR (P = 0.797) and de novo chronic kidney disease occurrence (P = 1.000). CONCLUSION: Retroperitoneal and transperitoneal RPN yielded similar perioperative and functional outcomes in patients with completely endophytic tumors. In well-selected patients with purely endophytic tumors, either a retroperitoneal or transperitoneal approach could be considered without compromising perioperative and postoperative outcomes.

Development and Validation of a Nomogram Predicting Intraoperative Adverse Events During Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Ability to predict the risk of intraoperative adverse events (IOAEs) for patients undergoing partial nephrectomy (PN) can be of great clinical significance. OBJECTIVE: To develop and internally validate a preoperative nomogram predicting IOAEs for robot-assisted PN (RAPN). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this observational study, data for demographic, preoperative, and postoperative variables for patients who underwent RAPN were extracted from the Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative (VCQI) database. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: IOAEs were defined as the occurrence of intraoperative surgical complications, blood transfusion, or conversion to open surgery/radical nephrectomy. Backward stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of IOAEs. The nomogram was validated using bootstrapping, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and the goodness of fit. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was used to determine the clinical utility of the model. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among the 2114 patients in the study cohort, IOAEs were noted in 158 (7.5%). Multivariable analysis identified five variables as independent predictors of IOAEs: RENAL nephrometry score (odds ratio [OR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.25); clinical tumor size (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.001-1.024); PN indication as absolute versus elective (OR 3.9, 95% CI 2.6-5.7) and relative versus elective (OR 4.2, 95% CI 2.2-8); Charlson comorbidity index (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05-1.30); and multifocal tumors (OR 8.8, 95% CI 5.4-14.1). A nomogram was developed using these five variables. The model was internally valid on bootstrapping and goodness of fit. The AUC estimated was 0.76 (95% CI 0.72-0.80). DCA revealed that the model was clinically useful at threshold probabilities >5%. Limitations include the lack of external validation and selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and internally validated a nomogram predicting IOAEs during RAPN. PATIENT SUMMARY: We developed a preoperative model than can predict complications that might occur during robotic surgery for partial removal of a kidney. Tests showed that our model is fairly accurate and it could be useful in identifying patients with kidney cancer for whom this type of surgery is suitable.

Perioperative outcomes following robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for complex renal masses: A Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative database study.

Introduction: Outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) depend on tumor complexity, surgeon experience and patient profile among other variables. We aimed to study the perioperative outcomes of RAPN for patients with complex renal masses using the Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative (VCQI) database that allowed evaluation of multinational data. Methods: From the VCQI, we extracted data for all the patients who underwent RAPN with preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) score of ≥10. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to ascertain predictors of trifecta (absence of complications, negative surgical margins, and warm ischemia times [WIT] <25 min or zero ischemia) outcomes. Results: Of 3,801 patients, 514 with PADUA scores ≥10 were included. The median operative time, WIT, and blood loss were 173 (range 45-546) min, 21 (range 0-55) min, and 150 (range 50-3500) ml, respectively. Intraoperative complications and blood transfusions were reported in 2.1% and 6%, respectively. In 8.8% of the patients, postoperative complications were noted, and surgical margins were positive in 10.3% of the patients. Trifecta could be achieved in 60.7% of patients. Clinical tumor size, duration of surgery, WIT, and complication rates were significantly higher in the group with a high (12 or 13) PADUA score while the trifecta was significantly lower in this group (48.4%). On multivariate analysis, surgical approach (retroperitoneal vs. transperitoneal) and high PADUA score (12/13) were identified as predictors of the trifecta outcomes. Conclusion: RAPN may be a reasonable surgical option for patients with complex renal masses with acceptable perioperative outcomes.

Perioperative outcomes following robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in elderly patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare perioperative outcomes following robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) in patients with age ≥ 70 years to age < 70 years. METHODS: Using Vattikuti Collective quality initiative (VCQI) database for RAPN we compared perioperative outcomes following RAPN between the two age groups. Primary outcome of the study was to compare trifecta outcomes between the two groups. Propensity matching using nearest neighbourhood method was performed with trifecta as primary outcome for sex, body mass index (BMI), solitary kidney, tumor size and Renal nephrometery score (RNS). RESULTS: Group A (age ≥ 70 years) included 461 patients whereas group B included 1932 patients. Before matching the two groups were statistically different for RNS and solitary kidney rates. After propensity matching, the two groups were comparable for baselines characteristics such as BMI, tumor size, clinical symptoms, tumor side, face of tumor, solitary kidney and tumor complexity. Among the perioperative outcome parameters there was no difference between two groups for operative time, blood loss, intraoperative transfusion, intraoperative complications, need for radical nephrectomy, positive margins and trifecta rates. Warm ischemia time was significantly longer in the younger age group (18.1 min vs. 16.3 min, p = 0.003). Perioperative complications were significantly higher in the older age group (11.8% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.041). However, there was no difference between the two groups for major complications. CONCLUSION: RAPN in well-selected elderly patients is associated with comparable trifecta outcomes with acceptable perioperative morbidity.

A Propensity-Matched Comparison of the Perioperative Outcomes Between Single-Port and Multi-Port Robotic Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Report from the Single Port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC).

Purpose: Single-port (SP) robotic surgery is a new technology and early in its adoption curve. The goal of this study is to compare the perioperative outcomes of SP to multi-port (MP) robotic technology for partial nephrectomy. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective cohort study of patients who have undergone robot-assisted partial nephrectomy using SP and MP technology. Baseline demographic, clinical, and tumor-specific characteristics and perioperative outcomes were compared using χ2, t-test, and Mann-Whitney U test in the overall cohort and in a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort, adjusting for baseline characteristics. Results: After propensity matching, 146 SP patients were matched with 146 MP patients. SP and MP groups had similar mean age (58 ± 12 years vs 59 ± 12 years; p = 0.606) and proportion of men (54.11% vs 52.05%; p = 0.725). The SP had a longer mean ischemia (18.29 ± 10.49 minutes vs 13.79 ± 6.29 minutes; p < 0.001). Estimated blood loss (EBL) and length of hospital stay (LOS), operative time, positive margin rate, and any complication rate were similar between the two groups. Conclusions: SP partial nephrectomy had a longer ischemia time, and a comparable LOS, EBL, operative time, positive margin rates, and complication rates to MP. These early data are encouraging. However, the role of SP requires further study and should evaluate safety and long-term data when compared with the standard MP technique.

Comparison of perioperative outcomes following transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a propensity-matched analysis of VCQI database.

OBJECTIVE: To compare perioperative outcomes following retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPRAPN) and transperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (TPRAPN). METHODS: With this Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative (VCQI) database, study propensity scores were calculated according to the surgical access (TPRAPN and RPRAPN) for the following independent variables, i.e., age, sex, side of the surgery, RENAL nephrometry scores (RNS), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and serum creatinine. The study's primary outcome was the comparison of trifecta between the two groups. RESULTS: In this study, 309 patients who underwent RPRAPN were matched with 309 patients who underwent TPRAPN. The two groups matched well for age, sex, tumor side, polar location of the tumor, RNS, preoperative creatinine and eGFR. Operative time and warm ischemia time were significantly shorter with RPRAPN. Intraoperative blood loss and need for blood transfusion were lower with RPRAPN. There was a significantly higher number of intraoperative complications with RPRAPN. However, there was no difference in the two groups for postoperative complications. Trifecta outcomes were better with RPRAPN (70.2% vs. 53%, p < 0.0001) compared to TPRAPN. We noted no significant change in overall results when controlled for tumor location (anteriorly or posteriorly). The surgical approach, tumor size and RNS were identified as independent predictors of trifecta on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: RPRAPN is associated with superior perioperative outcomes in well-selected patients compared to TPRAPN. However, the data for the retroperitoneal approach were contributed by a few centers with greater experience with this technique, thus limiting the generalizability of the results of this study.

Randomized Trial of Ultralow vs Standard Pneumoperitoneum during Robotic Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic and robotic surgery have traditionally been performed with pneumoperitoneum of 12-15 mmHg. Based upon our previous retrospective study showing an advantage to using ultralow pneumoperitoneum during robotic prostatectomy (RP), we performed a randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial of RP at 6 mmHg vs 15 mmHg to assess postoperative pain and opioid use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing RP with lymphadenectomy by a single surgeon were randomized to pneumoperitoneum pressures of 6 mmHg vs 15 mmHg. Pain scores and opioid use were recorded every 2 hours until discharge. Groups underwent intention-to-treat analysis on the primary outcome of pain scores up to 8 hours after post-anesthesia care unit. RESULTS: A total of 138 patients were randomized to RP at 6 mmHg or 15 mmHg (67 and 71, respectively). Mean console time was 7 minutes longer at 6 mmHg (135 vs 128 minutes, p=0.02). Mean estimated blood loss was similar (p=0.4) with no transfusions in either group. Most patients were discharged on the same day as surgery (88% vs 84%, p=0.5). There was no statistically significant difference observed in morphine equivalents administered during surgery or used postoperatively, yet 6 mmHg patients had lower immediate (0-4 hours) mean pain scores (2.1 vs 3.5, p <0.01) and lower maximum pain scores (3.0 vs 5.2, p <0.01). Shoulder pain was lower in 6 mmHg patients (0.03 vs 0.15, p=0.01), as was groin pain (0.6 vs 1.2 p=0.01). Patients reported flatus earlier with 6 mmHg (mean 1.0 day vs 1.3 days, p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Pneumoperitoneum pressure of 6 mmHg during RP has several advantages over the commonly used level of 15 mmHg without any identified disadvantages. Surgeons should consider using lower insufflation pressures.

Robotic partial nephrectomy for management of renal mass in patients with a solitary kidney: can we expand the indication to T2 and T3 disease?

BACKGROUND: Management of complex renal masses is challenging in a solitary kidney setting. We retrospectively compared oncological and renal functional outcomes between robotic and open partial nephrectomy (PN) in patients with a pT2-pT3 renal mass and a solitary kidney. METHODS: From a multi-institutional series, we identified 20 robotic partial nephrectomies (RPN) and 15 open partial nephrectomies (OPN) patients confirmed to have a pT2 or pT3 renal cancer. Surgeries were performed between January 2012 and July 2019. Patients with familial renal cell carcinoma, prior ipsilateral PN, or multiple ipsilateral synchronous tumors were excluded from the analysis. Baseline characteristics, perioperative and postoperative outcomes were compared using χ2 test, Fisher's Exact Test, Mann-Whitney U Test, and Student's t-test. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable. Cold ischemia was utilized more in the open group (92.9% vs. 15.8%, P<0.001). OPN group had a longer ischemia time (48.9 min vs. 27.3 min, P<0.001), a higher major complication rate (38.5% vs. 11.1%, P=0.009), and a higher length of stay was (5 vs. 3.5 days, P=0.023). Positive surgical margin rate was comparable (20% OPN vs. 15% RPN; P=1.000). At a mean follow up of 21 months local recurrence rates (1 OPN vs. 2 RPN, P=1.000) were comparable, chronic kidney disease upstaging rate (46.7% OPN vs. 45.0% RPN, P=0.922) and estimated glomerular filtration rate preservation at one year (75.2%% in OPN vs. 79.1% RPN, P=0.707) were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: In select cases and experienced hands, the robotic approach offers a reasonable alternative to open surgery in patients with pT2 and pT3 tumors and a solitary kidney.

Perioperative and Functional Outcomes of Robot-assisted Ureteroenteric Reimplantation: A Multicenter Study of Seven Referral Institutions.

BACKGROUND: Open revision of ureteroenteric strictures (UESs) is associated with considerable morbidity. There is a lack of data evaluating the feasibility of robotic revisions. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the perioperative and functional outcomes of robot-assisted ureteroenteric reimplantation (RUER) for the management of UESs after radical cystectomy (RC). DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective multicenter study of 61 patients, who underwent 63 RUERs at seven high-volume institutions between 2009 and 2020 for benign UESs after RC, was conducted. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data were reviewed for demographics, stricture characteristics, and perioperative outcomes. Variables associated with being stricture free after an RUER were evaluated using a multivariate Cox regression analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 63 RUERs, 22 were right sided (35%), 34 left sided (54%), and seven bilateral (11%). Twenty-seven (44%) had prior abdominal/pelvic surgery and five (8%) radiotherapy (RT). Thirty-two patients had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores I-II (52%) and 29 ASA III (48%). Forty-two (68%) RUERs were in ileal conduits, 18 (29%) in neobladders, and two (3%) in Indiana pouch. The median time to diagnosis of a UES from cystectomy was 5 (3-11) mo. Of the UESs, 28 (44%) failed an endourological attempt (balloon dilatation/endoureterotomy). The median RUER operative time was 195 (175-269) min. No intraoperative complications or conversions to open approach were reported. Twenty-three (37%) patients had postoperative complications (20 [32%] were minor and three [5%] major). The median length of hospital stay was 3 (1-6) d and readmissions were 5%. After a median follow-up of 19 (8-43) mo, 84% of cases were stricture free. Lack of prior RT was the only variable associated with better stricture-free survival after RUER (hazard ratio 6.8, 95% confidence interval 1.10-42.00, p = 0.037). The study limitations include its retrospective nature and the small number of patients. CONCLUSIONS: RUER is a feasible procedure for the management of UESs. Prospective and larger studies are warranted to prove the safety and efficacy of this technique. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we investigate the feasibility of a novel minimally invasive technique for the management of ureteroenteric strictures. We conclude that robotic reimplantation is a feasible and effective procedure.

Narcotic Avoidance After Robotic Radical Cystectomy Allows Routine of Only Two-Day Hospital Stay.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes of a narcotic-sparing clinical pathway after robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with ileal conduit targeting discharge on postoperative day #2 and report postoperative narcotic consumption, pain scores, and the resulting length of stay (LOS). METHODS: We reviewed a single-surgeon series of consecutive RARCs between August 2015 and September 2020. Acetaminophen and ketorolac were given with thorough patient education reserving oral narcotics for breakthrough pain. Intravenous narcotics were intentionally excluded from postoperative orders. Alvimopan was given once it became available. Subcutaneous ropivacaine pain pumps were removed before discharge. Discharge criteria included diet, oral analgesia, ambulation, and bowel function. Narcotic use and pain scores were evaluated to deternine the success of the applied narcotic-avoidance strategy. RESULTS: None of the 54 patients required intravenous narcotics postoperatively, and 19 patients (35%) never required even oral narcotics. Mean pain scores were higher in patients who required oral narcotics (4.3/11 vs 3.0/11, P = .001, respectively). Among 35 patients who received narcotics, mean tablets taken were 4.3/d (range, 1-13) with 68% using 8 or less tablets during their entire LOS. Mean LOS was 2.1 d (range 1-4). Five patients (9%) were discharged on POD#1, 37/54 (68.5%) on POD #2, 10/54 (18.5%) on POD#3 and 2/54 (4%) on POD #4. Eight patients (15%) were readmitted within 90 days. CONCLUSION: Minimizing narcotics after RARC with conduit allowed for a 2-day LOS in the majority of patients and the shortest ever reported mean LOS after cystectomy, essentially halving hospitalization time. Patient education is critical to minimizing narcotic usage.

The role of RENAL score in predicting complications after robotic partial nephrectomy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between tumor complexity based on RENAL nephrometry score and complications. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 2555 patients who underwent RPN for renal cell carcinoma. Major complication was defined as Clavien Grade ≥3. The relationship between baseline demographic, clinical characteristics, perioperative and postoperative outcomes, and tumor complexity were assessed using χ2 test of independence, Fisher's Exact Test and Kruskal Wallis Test. An unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression model was used to assess the relationship between major complication and demographic, clinical characteristics, and perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: There was a significant relationship between tumor complexity and WIT (P<0.001), operative time (P<0.001), estimated blood loss (P<0.001), and major complication (P=0.019). However, there was no relationship with overall complications (P=0.237) and length of stay (LOS) (P=0.085). In the unadjusted model, higher tumor complexity was associated with major complication (P=0.009). Controlling for other variables, there was no significant difference between major complication and tumor complexity (low vs. moderate, P=0.142 and high, P=0.204). LOS (P<0.001) and operative time (P=0.025) remained a significant predictor of major complication in the adjusted model. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor complexity is not associated with an increase in overall or major complication rate after RPN. Experience in high-volume centers is demonstrating a standardization of low complications rates after RPN independent of tumor complexity.

Robotic Vessel Sealer Device for Lymphocele Prevention After Pelvic Lymphadenectomy: Results of a Randomized Trial.

Introduction: Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) during robotic prostatectomy is associated with potential complications. The most common complication of PLND is lymphoceles, occurring in up to 50% of patients in studies with screening imaging but usually asymptomatic. We performed a prospective randomized trial to evaluate whether using advanced bipolar energy for PLND via the robotic vessel sealer can prevent lymphoceles. Methods: A total of 120 patients were enrolled in the trial with each patient serving as their own control. Robotic PLND was randomly performed using the vessel sealer on one side and standard PLND using clips on the other side. All patients underwent screening computed tomography scan 3 months postoperatively with radiologists blinded to the assigned technique. Significant lymphoceles were defined as fluid collections ≥3 cm in any plane. Results: Of those enrolled, 114 completed the study. The mean nodal yield was 6.5 nodes, with 3.1 versus 3.4 nodes for vessel sealer side versus standard technique (P = .35), respectively. The mean operative time for PLND was 11.3 versus 11.1 minutes (P = .62), respectively. Twenty-two lymphoceles were identified. Ten occurred on the vessel sealer side versus 12 on the standard side (8.8% versus 10.5%, P = .412). All lymphoceles were asymptomatic. Conclusions: While the robotic advanced bipolar device did not appear to prevent lymphoceles, the vessel sealer also did not increase the rate of lymphoceles compared with a standard technique using clips. Both techniques were equally efficacious, efficient, and safe for PLND such that surgeons who prefer to avoid clips can reasonably use the vessel sealer, although at increased cost. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT02035475.