Selective clamping during robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in patients with a solitary kidney: is it safe and does it help?

OBJECTIVES: To obtain the most accurate assessment of the risks and benefits of selective clamping in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) we evaluated outcomes of this technique vs those of full clamping in patients with a solitary kidney undergoing RAPN. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from institutional review board-approved retrospective and prospective databases from 2006 to 2019 at multiple institutions with sharing agreements were evaluated. Patients with a solitary kidney were identified and stratified based on whether selective or full renal artery clamping was performed. Both groups were analysed with regard to demographics, risk factors, intra-operative complications, and postoperative outcomes using chi-squared tests, Fisher's exact tests, t-tests and Mann-Whitney U-tests. RESULTS: Our initial cohort consisted of 4112 patients, of whom 72 had undergone RAPN in a solitary kidney (51 with full clamping and 21 with selective clamping). There were no significant differences in demographics, tumour size, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or warm ischaemia time (WIT) between the groups (Table 1). Intra-operative outcomes, including estimated blood loss, operating time, and intra-operative complications were similar in the two groups. Short- and long-term postoperative percentage change in eGFR, frequency of acute kidney injury (AKI), and frequency of de novo chronic kidney disease (CKD) were also not significantly different between the two techniques. CONCLUSION: In a large cohort of patients with solitary kidney undergoing RAPN, selective clamping resulted in similar intra-operative and postoperative outcomes compared to full clamping and conferred no additional risk of harm. However, selective clamping did not appear to provide any functional advantage over full clamping as there was no difference observed in the frequency of AKI, CKD or change in eGFR. Short WIT in both groups (<15 min) may have prevented identification of benefits in the selective clamping group; a similar study analysing cases with longer WIT may elucidate any beneficial effects of selective clamping.

Single-port versus multiport partial nephrectomy: a propensity-score-matched comparison of perioperative and short-term outcomes.

The objective of this study was to compare the perioperative and short-term functional and oncological outcomes of single-port and multiport robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy using propensity-score analysis. We evaluated all patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy at our institution between January 2019 and October 2020. Patient demographics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were collected and analyzed. Propensity-score matching was performed on age, sex, body mass index, prior abdominal surgery, and nephrometry score using the optimal matching method. A post hoc sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the robustness of the results. In total, 48 and 238 patients underwent single-port and multiport robotic partial nephrectomy, respectively. Following propensity-score matching, 48 multiport cases were matched 1:1 to single-port cases. The single-port cohort had lower median opioid use at postoperative day 1 (4.6 vs 9.8 MME, p = 0.0209) and cumulative hospital stay (5.1 vs 9.3 MME, p = 0.0357). Single port also had a shorter median length of stay (1.4 vs 1.6 days, p = 0.0045), although the post hoc sensitivity analysis showed no difference between the groups [- 0.13 (95% CI; - 0.580, 0.315, p = 0.5607). There were no significant differences in operative time, estimated blood loss, ischemia time, transfusions received, or positive margin rates. In conclusion, based on our early experience, single-port robotic partial nephrectomy is a safe and acceptable alternative to multiport robotic partial nephrectomy, providing comparable perioperative and postoperative outcomes while reducing inpatient opioid use.

A Multi-Institutional Experience Utilizing Boari Flap in Robotic Urinary Reconstruction.

Objectives: There is presently scarce literature describing the outcomes of patients undergoing robotic ureteral reconstruction (RUR) using the Boari flap (BF) technique. Herein, we report our prospective, multi-institutional experience using BF in patients undergoing robotic urinary reconstruction. Patients and Methods: We reviewed our prospective, multicenter database for all patients undergoing RUR between September 2013 and September 2021 in which a BF was utilized. Preoperative, perioperative, and follow-up data were collected and analyzed. Major complications were defined as a Clavien-Dindo classification grade >2. Surgical failure was defined as recurrent symptoms, obstruction on imaging, or the need for additional surgical interventions. Results: We identified 50 patients who underwent RUR using a BF. Four (8%) underwent the Single Port approach. Twenty-four patients (48%) were active or former tobacco users. Thirty-four patients (68%) had previously undergone abdominal surgery, 17 (34%) had prior ureteral stricture interventions, and 9 (18%) had prior abdominopelvic radiation. The most common stricture etiology was malignancy (34.4%). The median follow-up was 15.0 months with a 90% (45/50) success rate. The five documented cases of failure occurred at a median of 1.8 months following the procedure. Conclusion: In the largest prospective, multi-institutional study of patients undergoing RUR with BF in the literature to date, we demonstrate a low rate of complications and a high rate of surgical success in three tertiary academic medical centers. All observed failures occurred within 2 months of surgical intervention.

Single Port vs Multiport Robotic Pyeloplasty: Propensity-Score Matched Analysis of Perioperative and Follow-Up Outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of single port (SP) robotic pyeloplasty and multiport (MP) robotic pyeloplasty using a propensity-score matched analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a chart review of all patients who underwent SP robotic pyeloplasty from January 2019 to October 2020 and MP robotic pyeloplasty from January 2016 to October 2020. Patient demographics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were collected and analyzed. Propensity-score matching was performed on sex, body mass index, and history of previous pyeloplasty to adjust for potential baseline confounders. A post hoc sensitivity analysis for operative time was performed to examine the robustness of the results. RESULTS: In total, 24 and 41 patients underwent sSP and MP robotic pyeloplasty, respectively. Following propensity-score matching, 21 MP cases were matched 1:1 to SP cases. The SP group was shown to have longer median operative times (128.0 vs 88.0 minutes, P = .0411) and shorter follow up time (9.3 vs 18.7 months, P = .0066). In a sensitivity analysis, SP robotic pyeloplasty was marginally associated with increased operative time (95% CI -0.25, 29.72, P = .0540). CONCLUSIONS: SP robotic pyeloplasty is a safe and acceptable alternative to MP robotic pyeloplasty, achieving comparable perioperative and postoperative outcomes.

Propensity-Score Matched Analysis Between Extraperitoneal Single Port and Intraperitoneal Multiport Radical Prostatectomy: A Single-Institutional Experience.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative results and intermediate-term functional outcomes of single port and multiport robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy by using a propensity-score analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated all patients who underwent robotic prostatectomy by 3 urologic surgeons at our institution between January 2019 and October 2020. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected and assessed. Patients were matched based on body mass index, Gleason group, and prostate volume using the optimal matching method. RESULTS: Overall, 98 and 165 patients underwent single port and multiport robotic prostatectomy, respectively. Following propensity-score matching, 98 multiport cases were matched 1:1 to single port cases. The median operative time was lower for multiport (111.5 vs 147.0 minutes, P = .0000). Single port had a lower median estimated blood loss (50.0 vs 75.0 mL, P = .0006), pain score on postoperative day 0 (1.0 vs 2.0, P = .0004), opioid use at postoperative day 1 (0.0 [IQR 0.0-5.0] vs 0.0 MME [IQR 0.0-7.5], P = .0058), cumulative opioid use (2.0 vs 7.0 MME, P = .0008), and lymph node yield (4.0 vs 7.0 nodes, P = .0051). Single port had a greater percentage of men regain full erectile function by 6 months (23.8% vs 4.8%, P = .002). CONCLUSION: The single port robotic system is a safe option for localized prostate cancer treatment, offering superior pain control and comparable perioperative results and intermediate-term functional outcomes compared to the multiport robotic approach.

Single-Port Robotic Radical Cystectomy with Intracorporeal Bowel Diversion: Initial Experience and Review of Surgical Outcomes.

Introduction and Objective: Scant literature is available on surgical outcomes of radical cystectomies on the new single-port (SP) system. This study compares short-term outcomes in patients undergoing radical cystectomy with those undergoing intracorporeal urinary diversion (ICUD) on the multiport (MP) vs SP platform. Methods: This institutional review board approved study used a prospective cystectomy database and nonparametric testing including chi-squared, Mann-Whitney U, and Fisher exact tests to analyze all variables stratified by surgical approach. Results: Thirty-four patients underwent radical cystectomy with ICUD from September 1, 2019, to February 8, 2021. Twenty patients were in the MP cohort, whereas 14 were in the SP group. Table 1 presents the demographics of both groups and shows no statistically significant differences. Intra- and postoperative as well as pathology data are given in Table 2. Patients in the SP group had less narcotic use (MP: 25 morphine milligram equivalent [MME] vs SP: 11.5 MME, p = 0.047) and shorter return of bowel function (MP: 3 days vs SP: 2 days, p = 0.032). Operative times were similar between both groups despite having fewer patients undergoing ileal conduit (MP: 85% vs SP: 50%, p = 0.027) in the SP group. In Table 3, we list the early short-term postoperative follow-up data for each group that showed no significant differences between the two groups with an average follow-up of 4.9 months for MP and 4.4 months for SP. Conclusions: Our initial experience with SP robotic cystectomy and ICUD appears to be safe and an effective alternative to MP cystectomies. A learning curve was involved but the overall transition from MP to SP was smooth. Operative times were similar despite fewer patients undergoing ileal diversion, shorter return of bowel function, and less narcotic use in the SP group. Further studies including longer follow-ups with multi-institutional data are underway.

A single-center, retrospective review of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy with and without cryopreserved umbilical cord allograft in improving continence recovery.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of cryopreserved umbilical cord (UC) allograft as a nerve wrap around the neurovascular bundle (NVB) in accelerating return to continence after radical prostatectomy. A single-center, retrospective study was performed on 200 patients who underwent bilateral, nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with and without placement of UC around the NVBs (n = 100/group). Patients were excluded if they had previous simple or transurethral prostatectomy or history of pelvic radiation. Post-operative continence, defined as 0 or 1 safety pad, was analyzed between groups at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Complications, biochemical recurrence and adverse events were assessed to determine safety. Patients who underwent RARP with UC were significantly more likely to be continent at 1 month (65% vs. 44%, p = 0.018), 3 months (83% vs. 70%, p = 0.03), and 12 months (97% vs. 87%, p = 0.009). Sample stratification revealed that UC is beneficial for obese patients and those > 60 years, both of which are high risk for post-RARP incontinence. Biochemical failure was noted in 2 (UC) and 4 (control) patients. No adverse events or complications related to UC were observed. The results suggest that UC allograft is safe and accelerates continence recovery in post-RARP patients. Prospective, randomized trials are warranted.

Single port robotic assisted reconstructive urologic surgery-with the da Vinci SP surgical system.

BACKGROUND: Single port (SP) robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery was approved by the FDA for urologic surgery and clinically available in 2018. This new robotic system enables a camera and 3 separate instruments, with fully wristed motions, to be placed through a single 25 mm port. This system was designed to perform complex surgery in narrow deep spaces making it very suitable for complex urinary tract reconstruction surgery. This paper will describe our early experience of using the SP system for several types of urinary reconstruction procedures and will present our lessons learned, surgical philosophy to using the SP and early data. As with all new technologies, there is an associated learning curve and nuances to be discovered and overcome. METHODS: The da Vinici SP™ surgical system was acquired and delivered to at our institution in January 2019. Five high volume robotic urologic surgeons at our institutions underwent certification with the da Vinci SP™ and have been adding this technology into their armamentarium. Almost all cases were recorded for quality improvement initiatives and evaluated with the goal of creating standard operating procedures in terms of access, steps of procedure and minimizing pit falls. Data from all patients undergoing SP urinary tract reconstruction that were entered into our prospective institutional database were reported. RESULTS: From 1/2019 to 8/2019 we have performed 71 urologic SP cases with the SP of which 18 were for urinary tract reconstructive procedures. These cases included 15 pyeloplasties, 1 buccal mucosa ureteroplasty, 1 ureteral implant and 1 repair of vesico-vaginal fistula. This paper outlines our standard operating procedures for table positioning, port placement, access and surgical steps for these complex SP cases. Our early data suggests that use of the SP system for urinary reconstruction is safe and reproducible. CONCLUSIONS: The SP robotic surgical system has the potential to be used for nearly all robotic urologic reconstructive procedures. Advantages include a superior cosmetic result and ability to access all surgical quadrants without re-docking or repositioning. Limitations include no near infrared fluorescence imaging, smaller working space and slightly increased difficulty with retraction. We believe these obstacles will be overcome with time and experience. The da Vinci SP™ surgical system, in our initial experience, appears to be as safe and effective as its multiport counterpart for reconstructive surgeries.

Should a Drain Be Routinely Required After Transperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy?

Introduction: Closed drains have traditionally been placed after partial nephrectomy because of risks of bleeding and urine leak. We sought to study the safety of a nonroutine drain (NRD) approach after transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). Patients and Methods: From a multi-institutional database, we have analyzed the data of 904 patients who underwent RPN. Five hundred forty-six (60.40%) patients underwent RPN by a surgeon who routinely placed drains. Three hundred fifty-eight (39.60%) patients underwent RPN by a surgeon who did not routinely placed drains. Perioperative outcomes, length of stay (LOS), and readmission rates were compared between the two groups. Baseline characteristics, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes were compared using Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test. Results: Patients in the NRD group were more likely to have higher body mass index (30.10 kg/m2vs 28.07 kg/m2; P < 0.001), higher tumor size (3.0 cm vs 2.5 cm; P = 0.001), and higher renal score (8 vs 7; P < 0.001). Rate of transfusion (0.00% NRD vs 0.56% RD; P = 0.157) and overall complication (7.33% NRD vs 7.82% RD; P = 0.782) were comparable. Median hospital stay is 1 day for both groups. Readmission rate was also similar (0.55% NRD vs 1.40% RD; P = 0.279). In a multivariable analysis, NRD approach was associated with shorter length of hospital stay (incidence rate ratio [IRR] - 0.72, P < 0.001). Conclusion: An NRD approach for RPN yielded a decreased LOS and similar perioperative outcomes. Placement of surgical drains should be based on individual circumstances, and not required on a routine basis.

Postoperative Complications After Robotic Partial Nephrectomy.

Objectives: To assess the incidence of postoperative arterial malformation (AM) and urine leak/urinoma (UL) after robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) in a contemporary series and to evaluate risk factors for these complications. Materials and Methods: All RPNs were queried from Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective and prospective nephrectomy databases. Demographics, perioperative variables, and postoperative complications were collected. Differences between cohorts were analyzed using univariate analysis. Postoperative complications were graded using the Clavien-Dindo system. UL was defined in the context of signs and symptoms of a collection with supporting evidence of urine collection through drainage or aspiration. AM was identified based on postoperative imaging indicative of arteriovenous fistula or pseudoaneurysm and/or requirement for selective embolization. Predictors of AM and UL were assessed by univariate analysis. Results: A total of 395 RPNs were performed by four urologists between January 2014 and October 2018. Tumor complexity, defined by nephrometry score, was significantly greater in the prospective cohort (p = 0.01). Overall incidence of postoperative complications was 5.6% with cohort-specific incidences of 5.3% and 5.8%. The retrospective cohort had a greater percentage of complications classified as ≥IIIa: 8/13 (61.5%) vs 2/8 (25%). Overall incidence of AM was 2.3% with cohort-specific incidence of 3.1% (7/225) vs 1.1% (2/170). Overall incidence of UL was 0.25% with cohort-specific incidence of 0.55% (1/225) and 0.0% (0/170). The difference in incidence of both complications between cohorts was significant (p < 0.05). No significant predictors for AM were identified. Conclusions: The incidence of postoperative complications after RPN remains low (5.3% vs 5.8%, overall: 5.6%). UL and AM are becoming rarer with experience, despite increasing surgical complexity (0.55% vs 0%, 3.1% vs 1.1%).

Multi-institutional Experience Comparing Outcomes of Adult Patients Undergoing Secondary Versus Primary Robotic Pyeloplasty.

OBJECTIVE: To describe surgical techniques and peri-operative outcomes with secondary robotic pyeloplasty (RP), and compare them to those of primary RP. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our multi-institutional, collaborative of reconstructive robotic ureteral surgery (CORRUS) database for all consecutive patients who underwent RP between April 2012 and September 2019. Patients were grouped according to whether they underwent a primary or secondary pyeloplasty (performed for a recurrent stricture after previously failed pyeloplasty). Perioperative outcomes and surgical techniques were compared using nonparametric independent sample median tests and chi-square tests; P < .05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Of 158 patients, 28 (17.7%) and 130 (82.3%) underwent secondary and primary RP, respectively. Secondary RP, compared to primary RP, was associated with a higher median estimated blood loss (100.0 vs 50.0 milliliters, respectively; P < .01) and longer operative time (188.0 vs 136.0 minutes, respectively; P = .02). There was no difference in major (Clavien >2) complications (P = .29). At a median follow-up of 21.1 (IQR: 11.8-34.7) months, there was no difference in success between secondary and primary RP groups (85.7% vs 92.3%, respectively; P = .44). Buccal mucosa graft onlay ureteroplasty was performed more commonly (35.7% vs 0.0%, respectively, P < .01) and near-infrared fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green was utilized more frequently (67.9% vs 40.8%, respectively; P < .01) for secondary vs primary repair. CONCLUSION: Although performing secondary RP is technically challenging, it is a safe and effective method for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction after a previously failed pyeloplasty. Buccal mucosa graft onlay ureteroplasty and utilization of near-infrared fluorescence with indocyanine green may be particularly useful in the re-operative setting.