Comparison of lateral flank approach and low anterior access for single port (SP) retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy: an analysis from the single port advanced research consortium (SPARC).

Single Port (SP) robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) can be performed via retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approach. We aim to compare outcomes of two commonly described incisions for retroperitoneal SP RPN: lateral flank approach (LFA) and low anterior access (LAA). We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent SP retroperitoneal RPN from 2018 to 2023 as part of a large multi-institute collaboration (SPARC). Baseline demographic, clinical, tumor-specific characteristics, and perioperative outcomes were compared using χ2, t test, Fisher exact test, and Mann-Whitney U test. Multivariable analyses were conducted using robust and logistic regressions. A total of 70 patients underwent SP retroperitoneal RPN, with 44 undergoing LAA. Overall, there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The LAA group exhibited significantly lower median RENAL scores (8 vs. 5, p < 0.001) and more varied tumor locations (p = 0.002). In the bivariate analysis, there were no statistically significant differences in ischemia time, estimated blood loss, or complication rates between the groups. However, the LAA group had longer operative times (101 vs. 134 min, p < 0.001), but was more likely to undergo a same-day discharge (p < 0.001). When controlling for other variables, LAA was associated with shorter ischemia time (p = 0.005), but there was no significant difference in operative time (p = 0.348) and length of stay (p = 0.122). Both LFA and LAA are acceptable approaches for SP retroperitoneal RPN with comparable perioperative outcomes. This early data suggests the LAA is more versatile for varying tumor locations; however, larger cohort studies are needed to ascertain whether there is an overall difference in patient recovery.

Preoperative Predictors of Surgical Success for Robotic Ureteral Reconstruction of Proximal and Middle Ureteral Strictures.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate predictors of surgical success for patients undergoing robotic ureteral reconstruction (RUR) for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO), proximal, and middle ureteral stricture disease. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our multi-institutional Collaborative of Reconstructive Robotic Ureteral Surgery database to identify all consecutive patients undergoing RUR for UPJO, proximal and/or middle ureteral stricture disease between April 2012 and December 2020. The specific reconstruction technique was determined by the primary surgeon based on clinical history and intraoperative findings. Patients were grouped according to whether they were surgical successful. Preoperative variables between both groups were compared using chi-square tests. All independent variables with associations of P <.2 then underwent a binary logistic regression analysis to determine predictive variables of success for RUR (P ≤.05 was considered statistically significant). RESULTS: Overall, 338 patients met inclusion criteria. Surgical success rates of RUR are shown in Table 1. Univariate analysis (Table 2) showed that there were a lower proportion of patients with diabetes (8.9% vs 25.7%, P <.01) and a higher proportion of patients who underwent ureteral rest (74.3% vs 48.6%, P <.01) in the surgical success group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis (Table 3) further revealed the odds of surgical success in patients without diabetes was 3.08 times ((confidence interval) CI 1.26-7.54, P = .01) the odds of success for patients with diabetes. The odds of surgical success in patients who underwent preoperative ureteral rest were 2.8 times (CI 1.35-5.83, P = .01) the odds of success for patients who did not undergo preoperative ureteral rest. CONCLUSION: Surgical success of RUR for management of UPJO, proximal, and middle ureteral strictures may be influenced by factors including preoperative ureteral rest and presence of diabetes.

Immediate gemcitabine bladder instillation following bladder closure during robotic-assisted radical nephroureterectomy: a multi-institutional report of feasibility and initial outcomes.

Background: Bladder recurrence after radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) is common and randomized data supports utilization of prophylactic intravesical mitomycin to reduce recurrence. Recently, gemcitabine has been shown to be safe and effective at reducing recurrence following transurethral resection of bladder tumors. We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a single, intraoperative gemcitabine instillation immediately following bladder cuff closure during RNU, and to compare outcomes with non-gemcitabine intravesical chemotherapy agents. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients from two high volume centers who underwent robotic-assisted RNU between 2016-2020 and received either 2 g intravesical gemcitabine immediately following bladder cuff closure or non-gemcitabine intravesical chemotherapies [40 mg mitomycin C (MMC) or 50 mg doxorubicin] at the beginning of the procedure. Clinicopathologic factors were compared between cohorts. Bladder recurrence rates were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Results: During RNU, 24 patients received gemcitabine and 31 patients received non-gemcitabine chemotherapy. In total, 35% (19/55) of patients experienced a bladder cancer recurrence. There was no significant difference in estimated bladder recurrence-free survival (bRFS) between gemcitabine and non-gemcitabine patient cohorts (P=0.64). By 12 months post-surgery, 25% of patients had experienced bladder recurrence. The estimated 1-year bladder RFS survival was 73% for gemcitabine and 76% for non-gemcitabine chemotherapy. Overall survival and cancer-specific survival did not differ between cohorts. No adverse events potentially attributable to the use of gemcitabine were noted within 30 days postoperatively. Conclusions: Gemcitabine instilled immediately following bladder cuff closure during RNU has similar bRFS rates compared to established chemotherapy agents instilled at the start of surgery.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Robotic ureteral reconstruction for recurrent strictures after prior failed management.

Objectives: To describe our multi-institutional experience with robotic ureteral reconstruction (RUR) in patients who failed prior endoscopic and/or surgical management. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our Collaborative of Reconstructive Robotic Ureteral Surgery (CORRUS) database for all consecutive patients who underwent RUR between 05/2012 and 01/2020 for a recurrent ureteral stricture after having undergone prior failed endoscopic and/or surgical repair. Post-operatively, patients were assessed for surgical success, defined as the absence of flank pain and obstruction on imaging. Results: Overall, 105 patients met inclusion criteria. Median stricture length was 2 (IQR 1-3) centimetres. Strictures were located at the ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) (41.0%), proximal (14.3%), middle (9.5%) or distal (35.2%) ureter. There were nine (8.6%) radiation-induced strictures. Prior failed management included endoscopic intervention (49.5%), surgical repair (25.7%) or both (24.8%). For repair of UPJ and proximal strictures, ureteroureterostomy (3.4%), ureterocalicostomy (5.2%), pyeloplasty (53.5%) or buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty (37.9%) was utilized; for repair of middle strictures, ureteroureterostomy (20.0%) or buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty (80.0%) was utilized; for repair of distal strictures, ureteroureterostomy (8.1%), side-to-side reimplant (18.9%), end-to-end reimplant (70.3%) or appendiceal bypass (2.7%) was utilized. Major (Clavien >2) post-operative complications occurred in two (1.9%) patients. At a median follow-up of 15.1 (IQR 5.0-30.4) months, 94 (89.5%) cases were surgically successful. Conclusions: RUR may be performed with good intermediate-term outcomes for patients with recurrent strictures after prior failed endoscopic and/or surgical management.

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.

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.

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.

Ureteral Rest is Associated With Improved Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Robotic Ureteral Reconstruction of Proximal and Middle Ureteral Strictures.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of ureteral rest on outcomes of robotic ureteral reconstruction. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent robotic ureteral reconstruction of proximal and/or middle ureteral strictures in our multi-institutional database between 2/2012-03/2019 with ≥12 months follow-up. All patients were recommended to undergo ureteral rest, which we defined as the absence of hardware (ie. double-J stent or percutaneous nephroureteral tube) across a ureteral stricture ≥4 weeks prior to reconstruction. However, patients who refused percutaneous nephrostomy tube placement did not undergo ureteral rest. Perioperative outcomes were compared after grouping patients according to whether or not they underwent ureteral rest. Continuous and categorical variables were compared using Mann-Whitney U and 2-tailed chi-squared tests, respectively; P <.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Of 234 total patients, 194 (82.9%) underwent ureteral rest and 40 (17.1%) did not undergo ureteral rest prior to ureteral reconstruction. Patients undergoing ureteral rest were associated with a higher success rate compared to those not undergoing ureteral rest (90.7% versus 77.5%, respectively; P = .027). Also, patients undergoing ureteral rest were associated with lower estimated blood loss (50 versus 75 milliliters, respectively; p<0.001) and less likely to undergo buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty (20.1% versus 37.5%, respectively; p=0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing ureteral rest prior to ureteral reconstruction may allow for stricture maturation and is associated higher surgical success rates, lower estimated blood loss, and decreased utilization of buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty.

A Multi-Institutional Experience With Robotic Ureteroplasty With Buccal Mucosa Graft: An Updated Analysis of Intermediate-Term Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To update our prior multi-institutional experience with robotic ureteroplasty with buccal mucosa graft and analyze our intermediate-term outcomes. Although our previous multi-institutional report provided significant insight into the safety and efficacy associated with robotic ureteroplasty with buccal mucosa graft, it was limited by small patient numbers. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our multi-institutional database to identify all patients who underwent robotic ureteroplasty with buccal mucosa graft between October 2013 and March 2019 with ≥12 months follow up. Indication for surgery was a complex proximal and/or middle ureteral stricture not amenable to primary excision and anastomosis secondary to stricture length or peri-ureteral fibrosis. Surgical success was defined as the absence of obstructive flank pain and ureteral obstruction on functional imaging. RESULTS: Of 54 patients, 43 (79.6 %) patients underwent an onlay, and 11 (20.4%) patients underwent an augmented anastomotic robotic ureteroplasty with buccal mucosa graft. Eighteen of 54 (33.3%) patients previously failed a ureteral reconstruction. The median stricture length was 3.0 (IQR 2.0-4.0, range 1-8) centimeters. There were 3 of 54 (5.6%) major postoperative complications. The median length of stay was 1.0 (IQR 1.0-3.0) day. At a median follow-up of 27.5 (IQR 21.3-38.0) months, 47 of 54 (87.0%) cases were surgically successful. Stricture recurrences were diagnosed ≤2 months postoperatively in 3 of 7 (42.9%) patients, and ≥10 months postoperatively in 4 of 7 (57.1%) patients. CONCLUSION: Robotic ureteroplasty with buccal mucosa graft is associated with low peri-operative morbidity and excellent intermediate-term outcomes.

A Multi-Institutional Experience With Robotic Appendiceal Ureteroplasty.

OBJECTIVE: To report a multi-institutional experience with robotic appendiceal ureteroplasty. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 13 patients undergoing right appendiceal flap ureteroplasty at 2 institutions between April 2016 and October 2019. The primary endpoint was surgical success defined by the absence of flank pain and radiographic evidence of ureteral patency. RESULTS: Eight of 13 (62%) underwent appendiceal onlay while 5/13 (38%) underwent appendiceal interposition. Mean length of stricture was 6.5 cm (range 1.5-15 cm) affecting anywhere along the right ureter. Mean operative time was 337 minutes (range 206-583), mean estimated blood loss was 116 mL (range 50-600), and median length of stay was 2.5 days (range 1-9). Balloon dilation was required in 1/12 (8%). One patient died on postoperative day 0 due to a sudden cardiovascular event. Otherwise, there were no complications (Clavien-Dindo > 2) within 30 days from surgery. At a mean follow up of 14.6 months, 11/12 (92%) were successful. CONCLUSION: Robotic appendiceal ureteroplasty for right ureteral strictures is a versatile technique with high success rates across institutions.

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.

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.

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.