Impact of 5α-Reductase Inhibitors on Disease Reclassification among Men on Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer with Favorable Features.

PURPOSE: We determined the effect of 5α-reductase inhibitors on disease reclassification in men with prostate cancer optimally selected for active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective review we identified 635 patients on active surveillance between 2002 and 2015. Patients with favorable cancer features on repeat biopsy, defined as absent Gleason upgrading, were included in the cohort. Patients were stratified by those who did or did not receive finasteride or dutasteride within 1 year of diagnosis. The primary end point was grade reclassification, defined as any increase in Gleason score or predominant Gleason pattern on subsequent biopsy. This was assessed by multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. RESULTS: At diagnosis 371 patients met study inclusion criteria, of whom 70 (19%) were started on 5α-reductase inhibitors within 12 months. Median time on active surveillance was 53 vs 35 months in men on vs not on 5α-reductase inhibitors (p <0.01). Men on 5α-reductase inhibitors received them for a median of 23 months (IQR 6-37). On actuarial analysis there was no significant difference in grade reclassification for 5α-reductase inhibitor use in patients overall or in the very low/low risk subset. The overall percent of patients who experienced grade reclassification was similar at 13% vs 14% (p = 0.75). After adjusting for baseline clinicopathological features 5α-reductase inhibitors were not significantly associated with grade reclassification (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.31-1.80, p = 0.62). Furthermore, no difference in adverse features on radical prostatectomy specimens was observed in treated patients (p = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Among our cohort of men on active surveillance 5α-reductase inhibitor use was not associated with a significant difference in grade reclassification with time.

Hilar Parenchymal Oversew: a novel technique for robotic partial nephrectomy hilar tumor renorrhaphy.

INTRODUCTION: A renorrhaphy technique which is effective for hemostasis but does not place undue tension on the branch vessels of the renal sinus remains one of the challenging steps after hilar tumor resection during robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). The published V-hilar suture (VHS) technique is one option for reconstruction after an RPN involving the hilum. The objective of this video is to show a novel renorrhaphy technique, Hilar Parenchymal Oversew that has been effective for such cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We present two cases of RPN for renal hilar tumors. The first case depicts use of the VHS renorrhaphy technique for a tumor that abuts the renal hilum along 20% of its diameter. The second case demonstrates tumor resection and reconstruction for a tumor that has >50% involvement of the hilum along its diameter. After tumor resection, individual sinus vessels can be selectively oversewn with 2-0 Vicryl suture on SH needle. The remaining exposed parenchyma is controlled using the Hilar Parenchymal Oversew technique with a #0 Vicryl on CT-1 needle. RESULTS: For the Hilar Parenchymal Oversew surgery operative time was 225 min, estimated blood loss was 140 ml, warm ischemia time was 19 minutes, and there were no intraoperative complications. Pathology was consistent with clear cell renal cancer with negative margins. CONCLUSION: Robotic partial nephrectomy with the Hilar Parenchymal Oversew technique is a good alternative to VHS renorrhaphy in the management of renal hilar tumors "bulging" into the renal sinus with >50% of the tumor diameter abutting the hilum.

When Partial Nephrectomy is Unsuccessful: Understanding the Reasons for Conversion from Robotic Partial to Radical Nephrectomy at a Tertiary Referral Center.

PURPOSE: We sought to identify the preoperative factors associated with conversion from robotic partial nephrectomy to radical nephrectomy. We report the incidence of this event. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using our institutional review board approved database, we abstracted data on 1,023 robotic partial nephrectomies performed at our center between 2010 and 2015. Standard and converted cases were compared in terms of patients and tumor characteristics, and perioperative, functional and oncologic outcomes. Logistic regression analysis was done to identify predictors of radical conversion. RESULTS: The overall conversion rate was 3.1% (32 of 1,023 cases). The most common reasons for conversion were tumor involvement of hilar structures (8 cases or 25%), failure to achieve negative margins on frozen section (7 or 21.8%), suspicion of advanced disease (5 or 15.6%) and failure to progress (5 or 15.6%). Patients requiring conversion were older and had a higher Charlson score (both p <0.01), including an increased prevalence of chronic kidney disease (p = 0.02). Increasing tumor size (5 vs 3.1 cm, p <0.01) and R.E.N.A.L. (radius, exophytic/endophytic properties, nearness of tumor to collecting system or sinus, anterior/posterior, location relative to polar lines and hilar location) score (9 vs 8, p <0.01) were also associated with an increased risk of conversion. Worse baseline renal function (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-0.99, p = 0.04), large tumor size (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.22-1.7, p <0.01) and increasing R.E.N.A.L. score (p = 0.02) were independent predictors of conversion. Compared to converted cases, at latest followup standard robotic partial nephrectomy cases had similar short-term oncologic outcomes but better renal functional preservation (p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: At a high volume center the rate of robotic partial nephrectomy conversion to radical nephrectomy was 3.1%, including 2.2% of preoperatively anticipated nephrectomy cases. Increasing tumor size and complexity, and poor preoperative renal function are the main predictors of conversion.

Do Renin-Angiotensin Blockers Affect Renal Function and Cardiac Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Partial Nephrectomy?

PURPOSE: Currently no data exist to guide renal surgeons on the perioperative use of renin-angiotensin blockers despite potential cardiorenal benefits. We aimed to assess the impact of resuming renin-angiotensin blockers on postoperative renal function and adverse cardiac events following partial nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an observational analysis of patients who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy from 2006 to 2014 at a single institution. The Wilcoxon rank sum and chi-square tests, and logistic regression were used to assess the risk of adverse renal and cardiac events stratified by history and pattern of renin-angiotensin blockade perioperatively. RESULTS: We identified 900 patients with a median followup of 16.3 months (IQR 1.4-39.1). There were no significant differences in severe renal dysfunction at last followup on univariate analysis or adverse cardiac events at 30 days on multivariate analysis in patients stratified by a history of renin-angiotensin blockade. Of the 338 patients 137 (41.9%) resumed renin-angiotensin blockade immediately after surgery, which did not result in any significant difference in the postoperative glomerular filtration rate (p >0.05). Resuming renin-angiotensin blockade at discharge home was associated with a decreased risk of heart failure within 30 days of surgery (0.3% vs 11.8% of cases) and stage IV/V chronic kidney disease at last followup (2.6% vs 25.5%, each p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Renin-angiotensin blockers appear safe to continue immediately after renal surgery. Discharge home with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers was associated with a decreased risk of heart failure and severe renal dysfunction. However, this risk may be overstated as a result of the small number of patients discharged without resuming the home medication.

Intermediate-Term Outcomes for Men with Very Low/Low and Intermediate/High Risk Prostate Cancer Managed by Active Surveillance.

PURPOSE: We compare intermediate term clinical outcomes among men with favorable risk and intermediate/high risk prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 635 men with localized prostate cancer have been on active surveillance since 2002 at a high volume academic hospital in the United States. Median followup is 50.5 months (IQR 31.1-80.3). Time to event analysis was performed for our clinical end points. RESULTS: Of the cohort 117 men (18.4%) had intermediate/high risk disease. Overall 5 and 10-year all cause survival was 98% and 94%, respectively. Cumulative metastasis-free survival at 5 and 10 years was 99% and 98%, respectively. To date no cancer specific deaths had been observed. Overall freedom from intervention was 61% and 49% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Overall cumulative freedom from failure of active surveillance, defined as metastasis or biochemical failure after local therapy with curative intent, was 97% and 91% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Of the men 21 (9.9%) experienced biochemical failure after deferred treatment and the 5-year progression-free probability was 92%. Compared to men with favorable risk disease those with intermediate/high risk cancer experienced no difference in metastases, surveillance failure or curative intervention. However, patients at higher risk were at significantly increased risk for all cause mortality, likely reflecting patient selection factors. These conclusions may be limited by the small number of events and the duration of our study. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with localized prostate cancer who are on active surveillance demonstrated a low rate of active surveillance failure, prostate cancer specific mortality and metastases regardless of baseline risk.

Optimum outcome achievement in partial nephrectomy for T1 renal masses: a contemporary analysis of open and robot-assisted cases.

OBJECTIVES: To compare optimum outcome achievement in open partial nephrectomy (OPN) with that in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using our institutional partial nephrectomy (PN) database, we reviewed 605 cases performed for unifocal clinical T1 renal masses in non-solitary kidneys between 2011 and 2015. Tetrafecta, which was defined as negative surgical margins, freedom from peri-operative complications, ≥80% renal function preservation, and no chronic kidney disease upstaging, was chosen as the composite optimum outcome. Factors associated with tetrafecta achievement were assessed using multivariable logistic regression, with adjustment for age, gender, race, Charlson comorbidity score, body mass index, chronic kidney disease, tumour size, tumour complexity and approach. RESULTS: The overall tetrafecta achievement rate was 38%. Negative margins, freedom from complications, and optimum functional preservation were achieved in 97.1%, 73.6% and 54.2% of cases, respectively. For T1a masses, the tetrafecta achievement rate was similar between approaches (P = 0.97), but for T1b masses, the robot-assisted approach achieved significantly higher tetrafecta rates (43.0% vs 21.3%; P < 0.01). On multivariable analysis, the robot-assisted approach had 2.6-fold higher odds of tetrafecta achievement than the open approach, primarily because of lower peri-operative morbidity, specifically related to wound complications. Positive surgical margin rates and renal function preservation were similar in the two approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Optimum outcomes are readily achieved regardless of PN approach. The robot-assisted approach may facilitate optimum outcome achievement for 4-7-cm masses by minimizing wound complications.

Assessing the effects of modality of surgery on postoperative weight loss in patients undergoing partial nephrectomy.

PURPOSE: To compare the early BMI changes postoperatively between patients undergoing open partial nephrectomy (OPN) and robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). METHODS: Patients undergoing open NSS for a single renal tumor between 2010 and 2013 were retrospectively selected for the study. These patients were matched with RPN patients based on preoperative BMI and tumor R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score (1:1 matching). RESULTS: A total of 568 patients (284 pairs) met our inclusion criteria. The median time to lowest BMI was comparable between the OPN and RPN groups (24 vs. 29 days; p = 0.7). The mean BMI preservation was lower for the OPN group (96.8 ± 4.4 vs. 98.1 ± 4.7 %). On multivariable analysis after controlling for age, CCI, gender, tumor size, nephrometry score, estimated blood loss, occurrence of major complications and preoperative renal function, the modality of surgery favoring the RPN approach and the occurrence of major complications remained significant predictors for BMI preservation after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Occurrence of major complications is associated with weight loss after NSS. Minimally invasive NSS delivered by RPN had lower impact on BMI loss in patients undergoing the procedure compared to OPN. This finding further suggests that RPN delivers minimally invasive surgery beyond the boundaries of just smaller incision sites.

Robot-assisted ureteral reconstruction using a tubularized peritoneal flap: a novel technique in a chronic porcine model.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and functional outcomes in porcine models of a novel robotic surgical technique for the treatment of complex ureteral injuries and strictures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six pigs underwent robotic ureteral reconstruction using a long tabularized peritoneal flap and followed for 6-9 weeks after the surgery. Ureteral flap vascularity, intra-renal pressure, patency of the conduct, endoscopic aspect of the flap, renal function and histopathology were evaluated. RESULTS: All animals successfully underwent ureteral reconstruction using a tubularized peritoneal flap. Median operative time was 223 min (162-360). Flap tubularization suture took 31 min (19-47), and proximal anastomosis took 20 min (15-38). Bladder mobilization with psoas hitch and distal anastomosis took 9 min (7-12) and 23 min (13-46), respectively. On follow-up, significant shrinkage of the ureteral flap in both length and width was observed. Antegrade pyelograms confirmed dilation and tortuosity of the proximal ureter, dilation of the renal pelvis, and major and minor calyxes without any definitive strictures. Microscopically, focal urothelial lining was seen in the neoureter. Creatinine level was significantly higher at the end of the follow-up period (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted ureteral reconstruction using a tubularized peritoneum flap is technically feasible and reproducible. The flap sustained abundant vascular supply after different intervals of follow-up and the peritoneal mesenchymal cells differentiated into urothelium and myofibroblasts. Further studies are needed to address the issue of functional obstruction to improve long-term renal function outcomes.

Risks and Benefits of Pharmacological Prophylaxis for Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in Patients Undergoing Robotic Partial Nephrectomy.

PURPOSE: We investigate the safety and efficacy of pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients treated with robotic partial nephrectomy at our center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively examined our robotic partial nephrectomy database for cases performed between 2006 and 2014. Clinical venous thromboembolism episodes within 6 months from surgery were documented. Patients were stratified according to the administration of pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis into pharmacological prophylaxis (222) and no pharmacological prophylaxis (762) groups. The groups were compared in terms of perioperative outcomes, complications and adverse hemorrhagic events defined as the administration of 2 or more units of red blood cells, the need for vascular embolization or any procedures related to blood loss. RESULTS: There were no differences between the pharmacological prophylaxis and no pharmacological prophylaxis groups regarding mean operation time, median warm ischemia time and estimated blood loss. The rates of venous thromboembolism events were comparable between the groups (pharmacological prophylaxis 1.8% vs no pharmacological prophylaxis 2.1%, p=0.75). Overall 90% of venous thromboembolism events occurred within the first postoperative month. In the multivariable regression analysis encompassing pharmacological prophylaxis, perioperative aspirin intake, body mass index, operation time, Charlson comorbidity index, fellowship training and tumor complexity, operation time (OR 1.06, p=0.009) and Charlson comorbidity index (OR 1.28, p <0.0001) were associated with adverse hemorrhagic events. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of pharmacological prophylaxis did not increase the rate of adverse hemorrhagic events. Isolated inpatient administration of pharmacological prophylaxis after robotic partial nephrectomy does not appear to protect against venous thromboembolism postoperatively in that the majority of venous thromboembolism events occurred within the first 30 days after surgery. Longer duration of pharmacological prophylaxis for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after robotic partial nephrectomy should be considered.

Comparison of robot-assisted and open partial nephrectomy for completely endophytic renal tumours: a single centre experience.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes between robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and open PN (OPN) for completely endophytic renal tumours. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 1 230 consecutive cases, consisting of 823 RAPNs and 407 OPNs, performed for renal mass at a single academic tertiary centre between 2011 and 2016. Of these, data on 87 RAPN and 56 OPN cases for completely endophytic renal tumours were analysed. Patient and tumour characteristics, operative, postoperative, functional, and oncological outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: Apart from a higher prevalence of solitary kidney among OPN cases (RAPN, 5.7% vs OPN, 21.4%; P = 0.005), demographic characteristics were similar between the groups. There were no statistically significant differences in tumour size (P = 0.07), tumour stage (P = 0.3), margin status (P = 0.48), malignant tumour subtypes (P = 0.51), and grades (P = 0.61) between the groups. Also, there were no statistically significant differences among the groups for warm ischaemia time (P = 0.15), cold ischaemia time (P = 0.28), and intraoperative (P = 0.75) or postoperative (Clavien-Dindo Grade I-V, P = 0.08; Clavien-Dindo Grade III-V, P = 0.85) complication rates. The patients in the RAPN group had a shorter length of stay (P < 0.001), less estimated blood loss (P < 0.001), and lower intraoperative transfusion rates (0% vs 7.1%, P = 0.02). No local recurrences occurred during a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 15.2 (7-27.2) and 18.1 (8.2-30.9) months in the RAPN and OPN groups, respectively. There was no difference in estimated glomerular filtration rate preservation rates between groups for the early (P = 0.26) and latest (P = 0.22) functional follow-up. CONCLUSION: For completely endophytic renal tumours, both OPN and RAPN have excellent outcomes when performed by experienced surgeons at a high-volume centre. For skilled robotic surgeons, RAPN is a safe and effective alternative to OPN with the advantages of shorter length of stay and less blood loss.

Ipsilateral renal function preservation after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN): an objective analysis using mercapto-acetyltriglycine (MAG3) renal scan data and volumetric assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To objectively assess ipsilateral renal function (IRF) preservation and factors influencing it after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Our database was queried to identify patients who had undergone RAPN from 2007 to 2013 and had complete pre- and postoperative mercapto-acetyltriglycine (MAG3) renal scan assessment. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) for the operated kidney was calculated by multiplying the percentage of contribution from the renal scan by the total eGFR. IRF preservation was defined as a ratio of the postoperative eGFR for the operated kidney to the preoperative eGFR for the operated kidney. The percentage of total eGFR preservation was calculated in the same manner (postoperative eGFR/preoperative eGFR × 100). The amount of healthy rim of renal parenchyma removed was assessed by deducting the volume of tumour from the volume of the PN specimen assessed on pathology. Multivariable linear regression was used for analysis. RESULTS: In all, 99 patients were included in the analysis. The overall median (interquartile range) total eGFR preservation and IRF preservation for the operated kidney was 83.83 (75.2-94.1)% and 72 (60.3-81)%, respectively (P < 0.01). On multivariable analysis, volume of healthy rim of renal parenchyma removed, warm ischaemia time (WIT) > 30 min, body mass index (BMI) and operated kidney preoperative eGFR were predictive of IRF preservation. CONCLUSIONS: Using total eGFR tends to overestimate the degree of renal function preservation after RAPN. This is particularly relevant when studying factors affecting functional outcomes after nephron-sparing surgery. IRF may be a more precise assessment method in this setting. Operated kidney baseline renal function, BMI, WIT >30 min, and amount of resected healthy renal parenchyma represent the factors with a significant impact on the IRF preservation. RAPN provides significant preservation of renal function as shown by objective assessment criteria.

30-day hospital readmission after robotic partial nephrectomy--are we prepared for Medicare readmission reduction program?

PURPOSE: After CMS introduced the concept of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, hospitals and health care centers became financially penalized for exceeding specific readmission rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our institutional review board approved database of patients undergoing robotic partial nephrectomy at our institution and included in our analysis patients who were readmitted to any hospital as an inpatient stay within 30 days from discharge home after robotic partial nephrectomy. RESULTS: From March 2006 to March 2013 a total of 627 patients underwent robotic partial nephrectomy at our center and 28 (4.46%) were readmitted within 30 days of surgery. Postoperative bleeding was responsible for 8 (28.5%) readmissions. Pulmonary embolism was reported in 3 cases and retroperitoneal abscess was diagnosed in 2. Urinary leak requiring surgical intervention developed in 2 patients, pneumonia was diagnosed in 2 and 2 patients were readmitted for chest pain. Overall 9 (32.1%) patients presented with major complications requiring intervention. On multivariable analysis Charlson comorbidity index score was the only factor significantly associated with a higher 30-day readmission rate (p = 0.03). If the Charlson score was 5 or greater the chance of hospital readmission would be 2.7 times higher. CONCLUSIONS: Increased comorbidity, specifically a Charlson score of 5 or greater, was the only significant predictor of a higher incidence of 30-day readmission. This information can be useful in counseling patients regarding robotic partial nephrectomy and in determining baseline rates if CMS expands the number of conditions they evaluate for excess 30-day readmissions.

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for completely endophytic renal masses: a single institution experience.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for completely endophytic renal tumours. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records of patients who had undergone RAPN for a completely endophytic (i.e. 3 points for the 'E' domain of the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score) enhancing renal mass at our Centre from 2006 to 2012 were retrieved from our prospectively maintained RAPN database and used for this analysis. Demographics, surgical and early postoperative outcomes were compared with those of patients with exophytic masses (i.e. 1 point for the 'E' domain) and those of patients with mesophytic masses (i.e. 2 points for the 'E' domain). RESULTS: In all, 65 patients (mean age 56 years; mean body mass index 29.4 kg/m(2) ; mean Charlson comorbidity index 3.2) were included in the study group, accounting for 16.7% of RAPN cases over the study period. The main surgical outcomes were: mean operative time 175 min, mean estimated blood loss 225 mL, and mean warm ischaemia time 21.7 min. Pathology showed a malignant histology in 48 cases (74%), mostly clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Two positive margins (3%) were found. Patients with a completely endophytic mass had smaller tumours on preoperative imaging (mean 2.6 vs 3.3 for mesophytic vs 3.7 cm for exophytic; P < 0.001), and higher overall R.E.N.A.L. score (mean 8.7 vs 7.6 vs 6.4; P < 0.001). There was a lower rate of unclamped cases in the endophytic group (3.1% vs 4.8% vs 18%; P < 0.001). There were no differences in intraoperative complications, length of hospital stay, positive margin rate, postoperative change in estimated glomerular filtration rate, given a similar length of follow-up (mean 12.6 vs 15.7 vs 14.5 months; P = 0.3). CONCLUSION: RAPN for completely intraparenchymal renal tumours can be safely and effectively performed in centres with significant robotic expertise, with surgical outcomes resembling those obtained in the general RAPN population.

Step-by-Step robotic heminephrectomy for duplicated renal collecting system.

INTRODUCTION: A duplicated renal collecting system is a relatively common congenital anomaly rarely presenting in adults. AIM: In this video we demonstrate our step-by-step technique of Robotic heminephrectomy in a patient with non-functioning upper pole moiety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following cystoscopy and ureteral catheter insertion the patient was placed in 60° modified flank position with the ipsilateral arm positioned at the side of the patient. A straight-line, three arm robotic port configuration was employed. The robot was docked at a 90-degree angle, perpendicular to the patient. Following mobilization the colon and identifying both ureters of the duplicated system, the ureters were followed cephalically toward, hilar vessels where the hilar anatomy was identified. The nonfunctioning pole vasculature was ligated using hem-o-lok clips. The ureter was sharply divided and the proximal ureteral stump was passed posterior the renal hilum. Ureteral stump was used as for retraction and heminephrectomy is completed along the line demarcating the upper and lower pole moieties. Renorrhaphy was performed using 0-Vicryl suture with a CT-1 needle. The nonfunctioning pole ureter was then dissected caudally toward the bladder hiatus, ligated using clips, and transected. RESULTS: The operating time was 240 minutes and blood loss was 100 cc. There was no complication post-operatively. CONCLUSIONS: Wrist articulation and degree of freedom offered by robotic platform facilitates successful performance of minimally invasive heminephrectomy in the setting of an atrophic and symptomatic renal segment.

Urine leak in minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: analysis of risk factors and role of intraoperative ureteral catheterization.

PURPOSE: To investigate risk factors for urine leak in patients undergoing minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) and to determine the role of intraoperative ureteral catheterization in preventing this postoperative complication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MIPN procedures done from September 1999 to July 2012 at our Center were reviewed from our IRB-approved database. Patient and tumor characteristics, operative techniques and outcomes were analyzed. Patients with evidence of urine leak were identified. Outcomes were compared between patients with preoperative ureteral catheterization (C-group) and those without (NC-group). Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify factors predicting postoperative urine leak. RESULTS: A total of 1,019 cases were included (452 robotic partial nephrectomy cases and 567 laparoscopic partial nephrectomy cases). Five hundred twenty eight patients (51.8%) were in the C-group, whereas 491 of them (48.2%) in the NC-group. Urine leak occurred in 31(3%) cases, 4.6% in the C-group and 1.4% in the NC-group (p<0.001). Tumors in NC-group had significantly higher RENAL score, shorter operative and warm ischemic times. On multivariable analysis, tumor proximity to collecting system (OR=9.2; p<0.01), surgeon's early operative experience (OR=7.8; p<0.01) and preoperative moderate to severe CKD (OR=3.1; p<0.01) significantly increased the odds of the occurrence of a postoperative urine leak. CONCLUSION: Clinically significant urine leak after MIPN in a high volume institution setting is uncommon. This event is more likely to occur in cases of renal masses that are close to the collecting system, in patients with preoperative CKD and when operating surgeon is still in the learning curve for the procedure. Our findings suggest that routine intraoperative ureteral catheterization during MIPN does not reduce the probability of postoperative urine leak. In addition, it adds to the overall operative time.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic approaches to the ureter: Pyeloplasty and ureteral reimplantation.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The benefits of robotic surgery when compared to standard laparoscopy have been well established, especially when it comes to reconstructive procedures. The application of robotic technology to laparoscopic pyeloplasty has reduced the steep learning curve associated with the procedure. Consequently, this has allowed surgeons who are less experienced with laparoscopy to offer this treatment to their patients, instead of referring them to centers of excellence. Robotic pyeloplasty has also proved useful for repairing secondary UPJO, a procedure which is considered extremely difficult using a conventional laparoscopic approach. Finally, the pursuit of scarless surgery has seen the development of laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) procedures. The application of robotics to LESS (R-LESS) has also reduced the difficulty in performing conventional LESS pyeloplasty. Herein we present a literature review with regards to robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. We also discuss the benefits of robotic surgery with regards to reconstruction of the lower urinary tract. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed to identify relevant studies. There were no time restrictions applied to the search, but only studies in English were included. We utilized the following search terms: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction and laparoscopy; laparoscopic pyeloplasty; robotic pyeloplasty; robotic ureteric reimplantation; robotic ureteroneocystostomy; robotic boari flap; robotic psoas hitch. RESULTS: There has been considerable experience in the literature with robotic pyeloplasty. Unfortunately, no prospective randomized studies have been conducted, however there are a number of meta analyses and systematic reviews. While there are no clear benefits when it comes to surgical and functional outcomes when compared to standard laparoscopic pyeloplasty, it is clear that robotics makes the operation easier to perform. There is also a benefit to the robotic approach when performing a redo-pyeloplasty. Robotic pyeloplasty has also been applied to the pediatric population, and there may be a benefit in older children while in very young patients, retroperitoneal open pyeloplasty is still the gold standard. In the field of single incision surgery R-LESS is technically easier to perform than conventional LESS. However, the design of the current robotic platform is not completely suited for this application, limiting its utility and often requiring a larger incision. Optimized R-LESS specific technology is awaited. What is clear, from a number of analyses, is that robotic pyeloplasty is considerably more expensive than the laparoscopic approach, largely due to costs of instrumentation and the capital expense of the robot. Until cheaper robotic technology is available, this technique will continue to be expensive, and a cost-benefit analysis must be undertaken by each hospital planning to undertake this surgery. Finally, the benefits of upper tract reconstruction apply equally to the lower tract although there is considerably less experience. However, there have been a number of studies demonstrating the technical feasibility of ureteral reimplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty is gaining popularity, likely due to the shorter learning curve, greater surgeon comfort, and easier intracorporeal suturing. This has allowed more surgeons to perform the procedure, improving accessibility. Robotic technology is also beneficial in the field of LESS. Nevertheless, the procedure still is not as cost-effective as the conventional laparoscopic approach, and until more affordable robotic technology is available, it will not be universally offered.

Long-Term Functional and Oncologic Outcomes Following Robotic Partial and Radical Nephrectomy: A Report from a Single Institution with up to 15 Years of Follow-Up.

Objective: To evaluate the long-term functional and oncologic outcomes after robotic partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and radical nephrectomy (RARN). Materials and Methods: A retrospective review was performed on 1816 patients who underwent RAPN and RARN at our institution between January 2006 and January 2018. Patients with long-term follow-ups of at least 5 years were selected. Exclusion criteria included patients with a previous history of partial or radical nephrectomy, known genetic mutations, and whose procedures were performed for benign indications. Statistical analysis was performed with results as presented. Results: A total of 769 and 142 patients who underwent RAPN and RARN, respectively, met our inclusion criteria. The duration of follow-up was similar after the two procedures with a median of ∼100 months. The 5- and 10-year chronic kidney disease (CKD) upstaging-free survivals were 74.5% and 65.9% after RAPN and 53% and 46.4% after RARN, respectively. Older age was identified as a potential predictor for CKD progression after RARN, whereas older age, higher body mass index, baseline renal function, and ischemia time were shown to predict CKD progression after RAPN. Renal cell carcinoma-related mortality rates for RAPN and RARN were equally 1.1%. No statistically significant differences were identified in the local recurrence, metastatic, and disease-specific survival between the two procedures. Conclusion: Compared with RARN, RAPN conferred a better CKD progression-free survival. Several factors were identified as potential predictors for clinically significant CKD progression both in the early and late postoperative phase. Long-term oncologic outcomes between the two procedures remained similarly favorable.

Minimally invasive partial nephrectomy for single versus multiple renal tumors.

PURPOSE: We report the perioperative outcomes of robotic/laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for multiple tumors at a single operative session. Outcomes were compared with those of a matched pair cohort treated with partial nephrectomy for a single renal tumor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively maintained database from 2001 to 2010 and identified 33 patients who underwent partial nephrectomy for multiple tumors. They were matched 1 to 1 with 33 patients treated with partial nephrectomy for a single tumor. The multiple and single groups were matched for dominant tumor size (3.2 and 3.3 cm, p = 0.61), patient age (60 and 57 years, p = 0.59) and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (79.7 and 91.8 ml per minute/1.73 m(2), p = 0.11), respectively. RESULTS: A total 114 tumors were excised, including 81 in the multiple cohort. There was a median of 2 tumors per kidney (range 2 to 6). In the multiple and single tumor groups estimated blood loss (250 and 235 ml, p = 0.46) and warm ischemia time (19 and 30 minutes, respectively, p = 0.18) were similar. Median operative time (300 vs 217 minutes, p = 0.002) and hospital stay (3 vs 1 days, p = 0.005) were longer in the multiple group. There were 2 conversions to laparoscopic radical nephrectomy per group. Overall, complications developed in 11 (33%) vs 7 patients (21%) treated with partial nephrectomy for multiple vs single tumors (p = 0.40). Median estimated glomerular filtration rate at discharge home was 62.8 vs 67.6 ml per minute/1.73 m(2) in the multiple vs single tumor groups (p = 0.53). Histology confirmed malignancy in 82% and 67% of patients, respectively (p = 0.26). One recurrent tumor in the multiple group had a focal positive margin. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic/laparoscopic partial nephrectomy can be safely performed for multiple ipsilateral tumors with perioperative outcomes similar to those in patients with a solitary tumor.

Cryoablation versus minimally invasive partial nephrectomy for small renal masses in the solitary kidney: impact of approach on functional outcomes.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the change in renal function after renal cryoablation and partial nephrectomy based on tumor complexity according to the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients who had a renal tumor in a solitary kidney, and underwent renal cryoablation and partial nephrectomy between December 2000 and January 2012. Renal tumor complexity was categorized into 3 groups by R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score as low (4 to 6), intermediate (7 to 9) and high (10 to 12). All baseline demographic data, perioperative parameters and followup data including renal function were collected. Comparisons were made among similar tumor complexities. RESULTS: In the renal cryoablation and partial nephrectomy groups 29 patients (43 tumors) and 33 patients were identified, respectively. In all renal tumor complexities, renal cryoablation provided a better perioperative outcome in terms of median operative time, estimated blood loss, transfusion, hospital stay and complications. The median change in serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate was slightly greater in the partial nephrectomy group. However, the differences were not statistically significant for any of the tumor complexities. Three patients (10%) in the renal cryoablation group and 2 (6%) in the partial nephrectomy group required long-term dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with solitary kidneys, renal cryoablation is associated with superior perioperative outcomes compared to partial nephrectomy. Specifically, partial nephrectomy is not associated with greater loss of renal function than renal cryoablation regardless of the extent of tumor complexity.

Repeat robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN): feasibility and early outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the feasibility, and to report our single-centre perioperative outcomes of repeat robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From June 2006 to June 2012, 490 patients underwent RAPN for a renal mass at our centre. Of these patients, nine who had undergone previous ipsilateral nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) were included in the analysis. Patient charts were reviewed to obtain demographic data, preoperative surgical history, operative details, and postoperative outcomes and follow-up data. RESULTS: In all, 12 tumours were removed in nine patients (median age 69 years; six female). A third of the operations were performed on patients with a solitary kidney. The median (range) R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score for the resected masses was 7 (4-8). The warm ischaemia time was 17.5 min and in three of the nine patients an unclamped procedure was performed. No intraoperative complications were registered, whereas only two minor complications occurred postoperatively. There were no renal unit losses. All surgical margins were negative. There was no significant difference between mean preoperative and latest postoperative mean estimated glomerular filtration rates (70.5 vs 63.5 mL/min/1.73 m(2) , P > 0.05). At a mean (sd) follow-up of 8.3 (13) months, eight of the nine patients with a pathology diagnosis of malignant neoplasm were alive and free from disease at the latest follow-up. CONCLUSION: Although technically more demanding, repeat RAPN can be safely and effectively performed in patients presenting with local recurrence after primary NSS for kidney cancer.