Omission of intraoperative drain placement during robotic partial nephrectomy and robotic radical prostatectomy is safe: an analysis of 18,000 patients.

PURPOSE: Placement of a drain during robotic assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is standard practice for many urologists and can aid in assessment and management of complications such as urine leak, lymphocele, or bleeding. However, drain placement can cause discomfort and delay patient discharge, with questionable benefit. We aim to assess the correlation between drain placement with post operative complications. METHODS: The NSQIP targeted database was queried for patients who underwent RAPN or RARP from 2019 to 2021. Our primary outcomes included 30-day complication rates stratified by intraoperative drain placement. Secondary outcomes included procedure-specific complications, length of stay (LOS), and readmissions. Multivariable regression analyses, with Bonferroni correction, were performed for each post-operative complication. RESULTS: We identified 4738 and 13,948 patients who underwent RAPN and RARP, respectively. Drains were not placed in 2258 (47.7%) and 6700 (48%) patients, respectively. On adjusted multivariable analysis in the RAPN cohort, omission of drain placement was associated with decreased LOS (ß -0.45; 99.58% CI [-0.59, -0.32]) but no difference in overall complication rates. After adjusted analysis in the RARP cohort, omission of drain placement was associated with decreased risk of any complication (OR 0.73 [0.62-0.87]), infectious complication (OR 0.66 [0.49-0.89]), and LOS (ß -0.30 [-0.37, -0.24]). CONCLUSIONS: Using a large contemporary database, this study demonstrates that omission of drains during RAPN and RARP was safe without increased risk of postoperative complications. Despite inherent selection bias in this cohort, our data suggests that routine drain placement is not necessary for these procedures.

Implementation of surgical rehearsal utilizing patient specific hydrogel kidney phantoms prior to complex renal cancer surgery: a pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: With the advancement of surgical technology, the opportunity to integrate novel surgical preparation is imperative to improve patient outcomes and enhance safety. METHODS: Patient specific perfused kidney phantoms including the tumor, parenchyma, artery, vein, and calyx were fabricated using 3D-printing and hydrogel injection molding from scans of 25 patients scheduled for robotic partial-nephrectomy (RAPN). Models are validated for anatomical accuracy, mechanical, functional properties and surrounded by the other models of relevant anatomy in a body cast for a simulated surgical rehearsal. We investigated the impact of these preoperative rehearsals preceding complex RAPN by analyzing changes in surgeons' decisions following review of both axial-imaging and following rehearsal simulation. Predictive ability of these rehearsal platforms was compared to live surgery outcomes and trifecta of cases as an outcome was calculated. RESULTS: 25 patients with complex renal tumors, average 9.8 nephrometry score and 4.9 cm mean tumor diameter were consented. Mean blood loss and WIT were 193.2 ml and 19.8 min. Two Clavien 2 complications were reported at 30-day postoperative. Trifecta was achieved in 17 (68%) of surgical cases. Surgeons' confidence in their ability to complete a partial nephrectomy and ability to predict WIT significantly increased from initial viewing the axial imaging to after the rehearsal. The correlation coefficient between the procedural clinical data collected during the rehearsals and live surgery were calculated. CONCLUSION: The application of this versatile method for creating authentic perfused kidney phantoms can result in increased confidence in surgical plan and thus improved surgical performance and outcomes.

Outcomes of open versus robotic partial nephrectomy: a 20-year single institution experience.

Robotic assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) has emerged in urologic practice for the management of appropriately sized renal masses. We provide a 20-year comparison of the outcomes of open partial nephrectomy (OPN) versus RPN for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at our institution. An IRB-approved retrospective review was conducted of RCC patients at a single institution from 2000 to 2022 who underwent RPN or OPN. In addition to demographics, procedural details including ischemia and operative time were collected. Oncologic outcomes were evaluated through Kaplan-Meier statistical analysis to determine recurrence-free survival (RFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) analysis. 849 patients underwent RPN while 385 underwent OPN. 61% were male with average age of 58.8 ± 12.8 years. Operative time was shorter in the open group (184 vs 200 min, p = 0.002), as was ischemia time (16 vs 19 min, p = 0.047). However, after 2012, RPN became more common than OPN with improving ischemia time. RPN patients had significantly improved RFS (HR 0.45, p = 0.0004) and OS (HR 0.51, p = 0.0016) when controlled for T-stage and margin status. More > pT1 masses were managed with OPN than RPN (11.2 vs 5.4%, p < 0.0001). At our institution, RPN had an increasing incidence with reduced ischemia time compared to OPN over the last 10 years. While higher stage renal masses were more often managed with OPN, selective use of RPN does offer improved oncologic outcomes. Further investigation is needed to evaluate optimization of the selection of RPN versus OPN in the nephron-sparing management of renal masses.

Trifecta outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy in obese patients: A comparison of body mass index <25, 25 to <30, and ≥30.

OBJECTIVE: We analyzed robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) outcomes in obese patients based on body mass index (BMI) and trifecta achievement. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 296 patients who underwent RPN at Kansai Medical University Hospital between 2014 and 2022. The preoperative clinical data and perioperative outcomes were evaluated. Trifecta achievement (negative surgical margin, no major complications, and no acute kidney injury on postoperative day three) and its relationship to three BMI groups (<25, 25 to <30, and ≥30) were the primary outcome. The correlation between factors in achieving trifecta and BMI was evaluated. Univariate and multivariate analyses assessed variables for achieving the trifecta with logistic regression analysis. C-statistics quantitatively evaluated the prediction accuracy. RESULTS: Among 296 patients, 264 (89.2%) achieved trifecta (BMI categories were <25 [89.9%], 25 to <30 [89.4%], and ≥30 [82.6%]). There was no significant BMI-related difference (p = 0.566). Intraoperative blood loss increased with the BMI (p = 0.034). Multivariate analyses showed preoperative aspects and dimensions used for anatomic (PADUA) score independently predicted trifecta failure (odds ratio 1.71; 95% confidence interval 1.32-2.20; p < 0.001). The C-statistics of the PADUA score increased with increasing BMI. CONCLUSIONS: Higher BMI patients had more intraoperative blood loss during RPN. However, RPN remains safe and has acceptable quality and functional outcomes. Since patients with high PADUA scores combined with a high BMI may be at risk of trifecta failure, this should be explained before RPN.

Robotic partial nephrectomy is associated with a significantly decreased rate of postoperative pseudoaneurysm compared to open and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.

While partial nephrectomy offers oncologic efficacy and preserves renal function for T1 renal tumors, renal artery pseudoaneurysm (RAP) remains a rare but potentially life-threatening complication. This study compared RAP incidence across robotic-assisted (RAPN), laparoscopic (LPN), and open (OPN) partial nephrectomies in a large tertiary oncological center. This retrospective study analyzed 785 patients undergoing partial nephrectomy between 2012 and 2022 (398 RAPN, 122 LPN, 265 OPN). Data included demographics, tumor size/location, surgical type, clinical presentation, treatment, and post-operative outcomes. The primary outcome was RAP incidence, with secondary outcomes including presentation, treatment efficacy, and renal function. Seventeen patients (2.1%) developed RAP, presenting with massive hematuria (100%), hemorrhagic shock (5.8%), and clot retention (23%). The median onset was 12 days postoperatively. RAP occurred in 4 (1%), 4 (3.3%), and 9 (3.4%) patients following RAPN, LPN, and OPN, respectively (p = 0.04). Only operative length and surgical approach were independently associated with RAP. Selective embolization achieved immediate bleeding control in 94%, with one patient requiring a second embolization. No additional surgery or nephrectomy was needed. Estimated GFR at one year was similar across both groups (p = 0.53). RAPN demonstrated a significantly lower RAP incidence compared to LPN and OPN (p = 0.04). Emergency angiographic embolization proved effective, with no long-term renal function impact. This retrospective study lacked randomization and long-term follow-up. Further research with larger datasets and longer follow-ups is warranted. This study suggests that robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy is associated with a significantly lower risk of RAP compared to traditional approaches. Emergency embolization effectively treats RAP without compromising long-term renal function.

Best predictive single nephrometry score component to correlate with achievement of trifecta outcome in laparoscopic and robotic surgery.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the predictive value of individual components of the R.E.N.A.L scoring system for Laparoscopic (LPN) and Robotic Partial Nephrectomy (RPN). METHODS: Patients that had undergone a Laparoscopic (LPN) or Robotic Partial Nephrectomy (RPN) between 2018 and 2023 were reviewed. Our data collection included Race, Ethnicity, Age, BMI, R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score, and complications. Cases that achieved trifecta outcomes were designated as "Group A" and cases that did not achieve trifecta were "Group B". All the data were collected using REDCap database. RESULTS: A total of 111 cases were included, Group A consisted of 82% of all cases, whereas Group B 18%. Radius score demonstrated significant distinction concerning trifecta attainment and was the most predictive component of the 5 scoring metrics of the nephrometry system. In a subgroup analysis, R-score of 3 or a renal mass measuring ≥ 7 cm, was a significant independent negative predictor for trifecta outcomes, as well as tumor size at presentation. CONCLUSION: Renal nephrometry score is predictive of trifecta outcomes for patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic partial nephrectomy. Radius of mass was the most effective predictive component of the nephrometry score for trifecta prediction.

Conversion to Radical Nephrectomy From Robotic Partial Nephrectomy Is Most Commonly Due to Anatomic and Oncologic Complexity.

PURPOSE: Partial nephrectomy is standard-of-care treatment for small renal masses. As utilization of partial nephrectomy increases and includes larger and complex tumors, the risk of conversion to radical nephrectomy likely increases. We evaluated incidence and reason for conversion to radical nephrectomy in patients scheduled for partial nephrectomy by surgeons participating in MUSIC (the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients in whom robotic partial nephrectomy was planned were stratified by completed procedure (robotic partial nephrectomy vs radical nephrectomy). Preoperative and intraoperative records were reviewed for preoperative assessment of difficulty and reason for conversion. Patient, tumor, pathologic, and practice variables were compared between cohorts. RESULTS: Of 650 patients scheduled for robotic partial nephrectomy, conversion to radical nephrectomy occurred in 27 (4.2%) patients. No conversions to open were reported. Preoperative documentation indicated a plan for possible conversion in 18 (67%) patients including partial with possible radical (n = 8), partial vs radical (n = 6), or likely radical nephrectomy (n = 4). Intraoperative documentation indicated that only 5 (19%) conversions were secondary to bleeding, with the remaining conversions due to tumor complexity and/or oncologic concerns. Patients undergoing conversion had larger (4.7 vs 2.8 cm, P < .001) and higher-complexity tumors (64% vs 6%, P < .001) with R.E.N.A.L. (for radius, exophytic/endophytic, nearness of tumor to collecting system, anterior/posterior, location relative to polar line) nephrometry score ≥ 10. The converted cases had a higher rate of ≥ pT3 (27% vs 8.4%, P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: There was a low rate of conversion from robotic partial to radical nephrectomy in the MUSIC-KIDNEY (Kidney mass: Identifying and Defining Necessary Evaluation and therapY) collaborative, and an even lower risk of conversion due to uncontrolled bleeding. Targeted review of each conversion identified appropriate decision-making based on oncologic risk in most cases.

Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) can be performed either by a transperitoneal (TP) or a retroperitoneal (RP) approach. However, the superiority of one approach over the other is not established. Hence, the primary aim of this review was to compare perioperative outcomes between these two surgical approaches. METHODS: Literature was systematically searched to identify studies reporting perioperative outcomes following TP RAPN and RP RAPN. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023399496). The primary outcome was comparing complication rates between the two approaches. RESULTS: This review included 22 studies, 5675 patients, 2524 in the RP group, and 3151 in the TP group. The overall complications were significantly lower in the RP group [Odds ratio (OR) 0.80 (0.67, 0.95), p = 0.01]. However, the rate of major complications was similar between the two groups. The operative time was significantly shorter with the RP group [Mean Difference (MD)-16.7 (- 22.3, - 11.0), p = < 0.0001]. Estimated blood loss (EBL) and need for blood transfusion (BT) were significantly lower in the RP group. There was no difference between the two groups for conversion to radical nephrectomy [OR 0.66 (0.33, 1.33), p = 0.25] or open surgery [OR 0.68 (0.24, 1.92, p = 0.47] and positive surgical margins [OR 0.93 (0.66, 1.31, p = 0.69]. Length of stay (LOS) was shorter in the RP group [MD - 0.27 (- 0.45, - 0.08), p = < 0.00001]. CONCLUSIONS: RP approach, compared to TP, has significantly lower complication rates, EBL, need for BT and LOS. However, due to the lack of randomized studies on the topic, further data is required.

Robotic transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approach for anterior renal mass nephron-sparing surgery.

Robotic nephron-sparing surgery is traditionally performed via a transperitoneal (TP) approach. However, the retroperitoneal (RP) approach has gained popularity, particularly for posterolateral renal masses. The RP approach is associated with shorter operative time, less blood loss, and shorter length of stay, while preserving oncologic outcomes in selected masses. Here, we aim to assess the feasibility of the RP approach in excising anterior renal masses. Patients ≥ 18 years of age who underwent robotic nephron-sparing surgery for anterior renal masses were retrospectively identified (2008-2022). Baseline demographics, tumor characteristics, and perioperative data were collected and characterized based on TP vs RP approaches. Wilcoxon rank sum test and Pearson's Chi-squared test were used to compare continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Two hundred and sixteen patients were included-178 (82.4%) underwent TP approach and 38 (17.6%) underwent RP approach. Baseline demographics, preoperative tumor size, and renal nephrometry scores were similar. The RP approach was associated with shorter operative (150 vs 203 min, p < 0.001) and warm ischemia time (12 vs 21 min, p < 0.001), and less blood loss (20 vs 100 cc, p = 0.002) (Table 1). The RP approach was associated with shorter length of stay (1 vs 2 days, p < 0.001) and less total complications (5.3% vs 19.1%, p = 0.038). Major complication (Clavien-Dindo Grade > 3) rates were similar. There was no difference in positive surgical margin rates or pathologic characteristics. Robotic RP approach for nephron-sparing surgery is feasible for eligible anterior tumors and is associated with favorable perioperative outcomes with preserved negative surgical margin rates. Table 1 Patient baseline demographics Overall Transperitoneal Retroperitoneal p value Median/N IQR/% Median/N IQR/% Median/N IQR/% N 216 178 82.4% 38 17.6% Age (years) 60.5 (52.1-67.7) 60.4 (52.8-67.7) 61.6 (49.1-69.2) 0.393 Sex Male 126 58.3% 100 56.2% 26 68.4% Female 90 41.7% 78 43.8% 12 31.6% 0.165 Race White 162 75.0% 137 77.0% 25 65.8% Asian 4 1.9% 2 1.1% 2 5.3% Black 21 9.7% 18 10.1% 3 7.9% Hispanic 26 12.0% 18 10.1% 8 21.1% Other 2 0.9% 2 1.1% 0 0.0% 0.197 Body mass index (kg/m2) < 25 32 14.8% 25 14.0% 7 18.4% 25-30 68 31.5% 55 30.9% 13 34.2% 30-35 60 27.8% 50 28.1% 10 26.3% 35 + 56 25.9% 48 27.0% 8 21.1% 0.808 Prior abdominal surgery Yes 118 54.6% 104 58.4% 14 36.8% No 98 45.4% 74 41.6% 24 63.2% 0.015 Prior kidney surgery Yes 10 4.6% 9 5.1% 1 2.6% No 206 95.4% 169 94.9% 37 97.4% 0.518 Chronic kidney disease stage ≥ 3 Yes 45 20.8% 38 21.3% 7 18.4% No 171 79.2% 140 78.7% 31 81.6% 0.687 Charlson comorbidity index 0 138 63.9% 116 65.2% 22 57.9% 1 46 21.3% 38 21.4% 8 21.1% 2 19 8.8% 13 7.3% 6 15.8% ≥ 3 13 6.0% 11 6.2% 2 5.3% 0.412 Tumor size (cm) 2.7 (2-3.6) 2.8 (2-3.5) 2.55 (2-3.7) 0.796 Tumor laterality Left 100 46.3% 78 43.8% 22 57.9% Right 116 53.7% 100 56.2% 16 42.1% 0.114 Clinical T stage cT1a 186 86.1% 152 85.4% 34 89.5% cT1b 30 13.9% 26 14.6% 4 10.5% 0.509 RENAL Nephrometry score Low (4 to 6) 94 43.5% 76 42.7% 18 47.4% Intermediate (7 to 9) 112 51.9% 94 52.8% 18 47.4% High (≥ 10) 19 4.6% 8 4.5% 2 5.3% 0.829 TE tumor enucleation, SPN standard margin partial nephrectomy, IQR interquartile range.

Risk of pseudoaneurysm and bleeding complications after partial nephrectomy: comparison of tumor enucleation to standard margin technique.

Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the gold standard for the resection of amenable small renal masses. Some surgeons have adopted tumor enucleation (TE) over the standard margin PN (SPN) technique based on preservation of healthy renal parenchyma by following the tumor pseudocapsule. However, TE may also confer additional advantages due to avoidance of sharp incision including reduction in perioperative and bleeding complications. Therefore, we evaluated the rate of pseudoaneurysms and other complications following TE vs. SPN. A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing PN (TE and SPN) between 2008 and 2020 was conducted. Baseline characteristics were compared between the TE and SPN cohorts with univariable and multivariable logistic regression models. A total of 534 patients were included, 195 (36.5%) receiving TE and 339 (63.5%) SPN. There were no differences in baseline patient demographics. There was no difference in RENAL nephrometry scores between the two groups (p = 0.47). TE had lower rates of postoperative complications (11.3 vs. 21.5%, p = 0.002). TE had less bleeding complications (2.1 vs. 8.0%, p = 0.002) with no pseudoaneurysm events following TE compared to 12 following SPN (0.0 vs. 3.5%, p = 0.008). Need for interventional radiology largely reflected pseudoaneurysm differences (0 (0.0%) TE vs. 13 (3.8%) SPN, p = 0.006. Readmission occurred less often after TE vs. SPN (4.1 vs. 8.3%, p = 0.07). Patients receiving TE experienced no clinically significant pseudoaneurysm formation and were less likely to have any bleeding complication or major complication postoperatively. TE may be preferred when minimizing morbidity aligns with patient selection and preferences.

Perioperative and Survival Outcomes of Patients Treated With Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy and Percutaneous Microwave Ablation for Small Renal Masses: A Single Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Robot assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and microwave ablation (MWA) are 2 of the most advanced techniques for the management of localized small renal masses. PURPOSE: To compare the perioperative, functional and oncological results of RAPN and MWA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 171 consecutive patients undergoing either RAPN or MWA for a localized small renal mass at a single academic center was retrospectively collected. Baseline features included patients' demographics and masses' characteristics. Procedures were compared in terms of perioperative outcomes and renal function variation Progression of a persistent lesion or local recurrence after a complete treatment defined local tumor progression. Descriptive statistics and survival analysis tested the association between predictors and local tumor progression. RESULTS: Of all, 109 and 62 patients underwent RAPN and MWA. Patients in the MWA group were older (P = .002) had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) (P < .001) and higher frequency of preoperative chronic kidney disease (P < .001). MWA led to a shorter postoperative hospitalization time (P < .001) and lower incidence of medical complications (6.5% vs. 22.9%, P = .02) than RAPN. GFR decline was similar between groups both at discharge (P = .39) and at the time of last follow up (P = 1.00). A lower rate of secondary interventions (11.7% vs. 2.8%, P = .037) and a better disease-free survival (83.2% vs. 96.5%, P = .027) were reported after RAPN. Conversely, cancer specific and overall survival were comparable (P > .05). At univariate regression analysis, MWA was associated with local tumor progression (HR 3.46, P = .040). CONCLUSION: MWA displayed a lower perioperative impact, while functional outcomes were similar after each intervention. RAPN resulted superior in terms of tumor eradication, but no difference was noted regarding cancer specific survival. Thus, MWA represents a valid alternative in frail patients, though less radical than RAPN.

Robot-Assisted Renal Surgery with the New Hugo Ras System: Trocar Placement and Docking Settings.

The current literature relating to the novel HugoTM RAS System lacks consistent data concerning the bedside features of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). To describe the trocar placement and docking settings for RAPN with a three-arm configuration to streamline the procedure with HugoTM RAS, between October 2022 and April 2023, twenty-five consecutive off-clamp RAPNs for renal tumors with the HugoTM RAS System were performed. We conceived a trouble-free three-arm setting to ease and standardize RAPN trocar placement and docking settings with HugoTM RAS. Perioperative data were collected. Post-operative complications were reported according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. The eGFR was calculated according to the CKD-EPI formula. Continuous variables were presented as the median and IQR, while frequencies were reported as categorical variables. Off-clamp RAPNs were successfully performed in all cases without the need for conversion or additional port placement. The median age and BMI were 69 years (IQR, 60-73) and 27.3 kg/m2 (IQR, 25.7-28.1), respectively. The median tumor size and R.E.N.A.L. score were 32.5 mm (IQR, 26-43.7) and 6 (IQR, 5-7), respectively. Two patients were affected by cT2 renal tumors. The median docking and console time were 5 (IQR, 5-6) and 90 min (IQR, 68-135.75 min), respectively, with slightly progressive improvements in the docking time achieved. No intraoperative complications occurred alongside clashes between instruments or with the bed assistant. In experienced hands, this simplified three-instrument configuration of the HugoTM RAS System for off-clamp RAPN resulted in feasible and safe practice, providing patient-tailored trocar placement and docking with non-inferior peri-perioperative outcomes to other robotic platforms.

A Novel Technique of Renorrhaphy in Difficult Partial Nephrectomies by Single-Layered Parenchymal Imbrication.

Background In partial nephrectomies, achieving the trifecta outcome of negative tumor margins, no surgical complications, and minimal decline in renal function depends on various factors, with the complexity of the tumor described by the nephrometry score being chief among them. These factors often motivate surgeons toward a minimally invasive route even if the preferred route is an open approach. We describe an innovative renorrhaphy technique that overcomes the commonly encountered difficulty in reconstructing the renal parenchyma after resecting a complex tumor with a single-layered parenchymal imbrication (SLPI) technique. Methodology We conducted a retrospective review of case records of the patients who had undergone partial nephrectomies in our center from March 2017 to March 2021. The patients who underwent the SLPI technique were chosen, and data were extracted. Data collected included patients' preoperative imaging findings; intraoperative parameters such as ischemia time, blood loss, and number of renal arteries; and postoperative factors such as margin positivity rate, urine leak, secondary bleeding, follow-up imaging, and recurrence rates. Results A total of 28 patients were included in our study. The estimated blood loss was 234 mL (standard deviation [SD] = 55 mL), warm ischemia time was 31 minutes (SD 4 minutes), a hospital stay of 3 days (SD 2 days), two minor complications, two intraoperative complications, and one margin positivity. There were no major complications or recurrences. Conclusions The novel technique of SLPI renorrhaphy can help deal with complex renal masses and is an easily reproducible technique both in open and minimally invasive approaches.

RPN (Radius, Position of tumour, iNvasion of renal sinus) Classification and Nephrometry Scoring System: An Internationally Developed Clinical Classification To Describe the Surgical Difficulty for Renal Masses for Which Robotic Partial Nephrectomy Is Planned.

Background: The surgical difficulty of partial nephrectomy (PN) varies depending on the operative approach. Existing nephrometry classifications for assessment of surgical difficulty are not specific to the robotic approach. Objective: To develop an international robotic-specific classification of renal masses for preoperative assessment of surgical difficulty of robotic PN. Design setting and participants: The RPN classification (Radius, Position of tumour, iNvasion of renal sinus) considers three parameters: tumour size, tumour position, and invasion of the renal sinus. In an international survey, 45 experienced robotic surgeons independently reviewed de-identified computed tomography images of 144 patients with renal tumours to assess surgical difficulty of robot-assisted PN using a 10-point Likert scale. A separate data set of 248 patients was used for external validation. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Multiple linear regression was conducted and a risk score was developed after rounding the regression coefficients. The RPN classification was correlated with the surgical difficulty score derived from the international survey. External validation was performed using a retrospective cohort of 248 patients. RPN classification was also compared with the RENAL (Radius; Exophytic/endophytic; Nearness; Anterior/posterior; Location), PADUA (Preoperative Aspects and Dimensions Used for Anatomic), and SPARE (Simplified PADUA REnal) scoring systems. Results and limitation: The median tumour size was 38 mm (interquartile range 27-49). The majority (81%) of renal tumours were peripheral, followed by hilar (12%) and central (7.6%) locations. Noninvasive and semi-invasive tumours accounted for 37% each, and 26% of the tumours were invasive. The mean surgical difficulty score was 5.2 (standard deviation 1.9). Linear regression analysis indicated that the RPN classification correlated very well with the surgical difficulty score (R2 = 0.80). The R2 values for the other scoring systems were: 0.66 for RENAL, 0.75 for PADUA, and 0.70 for SPARE. In an external validation cohort, the performance of all four classification systems in predicting perioperative outcomes was similar, with low R2 values. Conclusions: The proposed RPN classification is the first nephrometry system to assess the surgical difficulty of renal masses for which robot-assisted PN is planned, and is a useful tool to assist in surgical planning, training and data reporting. Patient summary: We describe a simple classification system to help urologists in preoperative assessment of the difficulty of robotic surgery for partial kidney removal for kidney tumours.

Assessing the Trade-off Between the Safety and Effectiveness of Off-clamp Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for Renal Masses with a High RENAL Score: A Propensity Score-matched Comparison of Perioperative and Functional Outcomes in a Multicenter Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tumors with a high nephrometry score represent a challenging surgical scenario for which robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) is a primary option in expert hands. OBJECTIVE: To compare perioperative and functional outcomes of off-clamp and on-clamp RPN in patients with renal masses with a high RENAL score (≥9). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: For this retrospective analysis, an RPN data set including 1604 patients treated at three institutions between 2003 and 2021 was queried for cases with a RENAL score ≥9. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We used 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) to select a cohort in which imbalances between the off-clamp and on-clamp groups were minimized. We used χ2 and Student t tests to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare the probability of having an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥45 ml/min during follow-up. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of a trifecta outcome (negative surgical margin status, no Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications, eGFR decline ≤30%) and of retaining eGFR ≥45 ml/min over time. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: From an overall cohort of 354 patients (142 on-clamp, 212 off-clamp), a homogeneous PSM cohort of 78 patients in each group was selected (p ≥ 0.17). In the PSM cohort, operative time was significantly shorter in the off-clamp group (p < 0.001). There were no differences between the groups in the rates of severe complications (p = 0.32) and positive surgical margins (p = 0.24). The rate of trifecta achievement was significantly higher in the off-clamp group (83.3% vs 67.9%; p = 0.03). Warm ischemia time >20 min was independently negatively associated with trifecta achievement (odds ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.74). Moreover, the off-clamp group had a significantly higher probability of retaining eGFR ≥45 ml/min over time (3 yr: 95.9% vs 81.6%; p = 0.03); every 1-min increase in warm ischemia time reduced this probability by 1.3%. CONCLUSIONS: We found a favorable trade-off between the benefits and risks of off-clamp RPN, with similar perioperative outcomes and a net benefit in terms of trifecta achievement and long-term renal function outcomes in comparison to on-clamp RPN. PATIENT SUMMARY: The complexity of surgery for kidney tumors can be assessed using the RENAL score, which is a measure of the location and size of a kidney tumor. In a multicenter series of patients with tumors with a high RENAL score, we compared outcomes between strategies with (on-clamp) and without (off-clamp) clamping of kidney blood vessels during robot-assisted removal of part of the affected kidney. We found that off-clamp surgery results in better postoperative kidney function.

Transperitoneal Laparoscopic and Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for Renal Cancer in Patients with Previous Abdominal Surgery: a Single Centre Experience.

Patients with previous abdominal surgery are at an increased risk of peritoneal adhesions, which may complicate transperitoneal surgery. The objective of this article is to report single centre experience with transperitoneal laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy for renal cancer in patients with previous abdominal surgery. We evaluated data from 128 patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic partial nephrectomy from January 2010 to May 2020. Patients were divided into three groups according to the localization of main previous surgery: in the upper contralateral abdominal quadrant, in the upper ipsilateral abdominal quadrant or in the middle line, in lower abdominal quadrants. Each group was divided into two subgroups (laparoscopic/robotic partial nephrectomy). We separately analysed data of indocyanine green-enhanced robotic partial nephrectomy. Our study did not find significant difference in the rate of intraoperative or postoperative complications between any of the groups. The type of partial nephrectomy (robotic or laparoscopic) affected the surgery time, blood loss, and length of stay in hospital, but did not significantly influence the frequency of complications. Partial nephrectomy in group of patients with prior renal surgery led to a higher rate of intraoperative low-grade complications. We did not observe more favourable results for indocyanine green-enhanced robotic partial nephrectomy. The location of previous abdominal surgery does not influence the rate of intraoperative or postoperative complications. The type of partial nephrectomy (robotic or laparoscopic) does not affect the frequency of complications.

Cumulative sum analysis (CUSUM) for evaluating learning curve (LC) of robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RALPN).

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RALPN) is becoming a standard treatment for localized renal tumors worldwide. Data on the learning curve (LC) of RALPN are still insufficient. In the present study, we have attempted to gain further insight in this area by evaluating the LC using cumulative summation analysis (CUSUM). A series of 127 robotic partial nephrectomies were performed by two surgeons at our center between January 2018 and December 2020. CUSUM analysis was used to evaluate LC for operative time (OT). The different phases of surgical experience were compared in terms of perioperative parameters and pathologic outcomes. In addition, multivariate linear regression analysis was used to confirm the results of the CUSUM analysis by adjusting the phases of surgical experience for the other confounding factors that may affect OT. The median age of patients was 62 years, mean BMI was 28, and mean tumor size was 32 mm. Tumor complexity was classified as low, intermediate, and high risk according to the PADUA score in 44%, 38%, and 18%, respectively. The mean OT was 205 min, and trifecta was achieved in 72.4%. According to the CUSUM diagram, the LC of OT was divided into three phases: initial learning phase (18 cases), plateau phase (20 cases), and mastery phase (subsequent cases). The mean OT was 242, 208, and 190 min in the first, second, and third phases, respectively (P < 0.001). Surgeon experience phases were significantly associated with OT in multivariate analysis considering other preoperative and operative parameters. Surgical outcome was comparable between the three phases in terms of complications and achievement of trifecta; hospital stay was shorter in the mastery phase than in the first 2 phases (4 days vs 5 days, P = 0.02). The LC for RALPN is divided into 3 performance phases with CUSUM. Mastery of surgical technique was achieved after performing 38 cases. The initial learning phase of RALPN has no negative impact on surgical and oncologic outcomes .

Long term experience of robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy as the default approach in the management of renal masses: should the paradigm shift?

Although retroperitoneal surgery has demonstrated a better quality of recovery compared to transperitoneal routes, Retroperitoneal Robot Assisted Partial Nephrectomy (RRAPN) remains proportionally infrequent. As the boundaries of what is achievable robotically continue to be pushed, we present our experience at a high-volume tertiary referral centre that specialises in retroperitoneal surgery, exploring its feasibility as standard of care in the management of small renal masses. A prospective database of 784 RAPNs (2009-2020) was reviewed and 721 RRAPNs (92%) were performed at our centre. In our practice, we utilise a four-port approach to RRAPN. Patient, tumour and operative characteristics were assessed and both oncological outcomes and trifecta and pentafecta achievements were determined. Pentafecta was defined as achieving trifecta (negative surgical margin, no post-operative complications and WIT of < 25 min) plus over 90% estimated GFR preservation and no CKD stage upgrading at 1 year. Multivariate analysis was conducted to predict peri-operative factors which may prevent achieving a trifecta/pentafecta outcome. From 784 cases, 112 RAPNs were performed for imperative reasons, whilst the remainder were elective. Mean BMI ± s.d amongst our cohort was 28.6 ± 5.7. Mean tumour size was 3.1 cm (range 0.8-10.5 cm) and 47% of cases were stratified as intermediate/high risk using R.E.N.A.L nephrometry scoring. Forty-six patients had lesions in a hilar location, and 31% were anterior. Median blood loss was 30mls, with an open conversion rate of 1% and transfusion rate of 1.6%. Median warm ischaemic time (WIT) was 21 min, positive surgical margins were found in 4% and our post-operative Clavien 3/ > complication rate was 2.6%. We had a 1-day median length of stay with a 30 day readmission rate of 2%. Of 631 patients (80%) with a definitive histological diagnosis of cancer, 23% had T1b/ > disease. Over a mean 15 month follow-up period (range 1-125 months), 2% of patients developed recurrences and our cohort demonstrated a 99% 5 year cancer specific survival. Trifecta was achieved in 67% of cases and pentafecta in 47%. Age (p = 0.05), operative time (p = 0.008), pT1b tumours (p = 0.03), R.E.N.A.L score and blood loss (p = 0.001) were found to statistically significantly influence achievement of trifecta. Pentafecta achievement was influenced by R.E.N.A.L score (p = 0.008), operative time (p = 0.001) and blood loss (p = 0.001). We demonstrate the retroperitoneal approach in RAPN is feasible and safe irrespective of lesion location and complexity. In the hands of high-volume centres that are skilled in the retroperitoneal approach the benefits of retroperitoneal surgery can be extended even to challenging cohorts of patients without compromising their oncological or functional outcomes.

Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for Bilateral Renal Masses.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There are very few data on patients undergoing robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for bilateral renal masses. The aim of this review is to update the literature and discuss the controversial points on this topic. RECENT FINDINGS: Nine papers have been published regarding RAPN for bilateral renal masses. In particular, five papers were case reports while the remaining four reported patient series. Concerning the outcomes, all these papers highlighted the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of bilateral RAPN for bilateral renal masses. The literature confirmed RAPN as an optimal procedure for the treatment of bilateral renal masses. However, these outcomes mainly derived from selected group of patients who underwent complex surgical procedures by expert robotic surgeons at high volume centers and cannot be generalizable to all categories of patients or centers. The simultaneous bilateral approach resulted feasible showing some advantages and without higher complications than a staged procedure in particular when clampless or selective clamping techniques were performed.

Standardization of Surgical Outcome Across the Tumor Complexity Spectrum in Robotic Partial Nephrectomy.

Introduction: Standardization of surgical steps or techniques can decrease error rates, increase efficiency, and ensure reproducible outcomes. In this study, we aimed to analyze the benefit of a standardized approach to robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) on the reproducibility of outcomes across different tumor complexities. Methods: A single-center study of patients who have undergone a transperitoneal robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy for kidney cancer using the first assistant sparing technique between May 2014 and March 2022 was performed. Overall, 496 patients were included in the analysis. We compared clinical data and perioperative and postoperative outcomes for low, moderate, and high complexity score renal tumors. Tumor complexity was stratified using the Radius, Exophytic/Endophytic, Nearness to the collecting system or sinus, Anterior/Posterior, Location relative to the polar line nephrometry score. Data were compared using Kruskal-Wallis test, Chi-square test of Independence, and Fisher's exact test. Results: Of the patients in the study, 54.64% were low tumor complexities (n = 271), 40.32% were moderate tumor complexities (n = 200), and 5.04% were high tumor complexities (n = 25). High tumor complexity patients had significantly longer operative time (149 minutes versus 137 minutes moderate complexity versus 125 minutes low complexity, P = .001), longer ischemia time (12 minutes versus 11 minutes intermediate versus 10 minutes low complexity, P = .0001), and significant reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate (-12.58 mL/min/1.73 m2 versus -5.51 mL/min/1.73 m2 intermediate versus -3.08 mL/min/1.73 m2 low complexity, P = .005). There was no significant difference in estimated blood loss (P = .074), blood transfusion rate (P = .454), postoperative complication rate (P = .527), surgical complication rate (P = .210), major complication rate (P = .098), length of hospital stay (P = .583), positive surgical margins (P = .872), and trifecta achievement (P = .740). Conclusion: Irrespective of tumor complexity, approaching RPN using a standardized approach will offer patients favorable perioperative outcomes. This approach has standardized our preoperative counseling, patient expectation, and postoperative surgical pathway across the tumor complexity spectrum.