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.

Assessing Functional Outcomes of Partial Versus Radical Nephrectomy for T1b-T2 Renal Masses: Results from a Multi-institutional Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Deterioration of renal function is associated with increased all-cause mortality. In renal masses larger than 4 cm, whether partial versus radical nephrectomy (PN vs. RN) might affect long-term functional outcomes is unknown. This study tested the association between PN versus RN and postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI), recovery of at least 90% of the preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 1 year, upstaging of chronic kidney disease (CKD) one stage or more at 1 year, and eGFR decline of 45 ml/min/1.73 m2 or less at 1 year. METHODS: Data from 23 high-volume institutions were used. The study included only surgically treated patients with single, unilateral, localized, clinical T1b-2 renal masses. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 968 PN patients and 325 RN patients were identified. The rate of AKI was lower in the PN versus the RN patients (17% vs. 58%; p < 0.001). At 1 year after surgery, for the PN versus the RN patients, the rate for recovery of at least 90% of baseline eGFR was 51% versus 16%, the rate of CKD progression of ≥ 1 stage was 38% versus 65%, and the rate of eGFR decline of 45 ml/min/1.73 m2 or less was 10% versus 23% (all p < 0.001). Radical nephrectomy independently predicted AKI (odds ratio [OR], 7.61), 1-year ≥ 90% eGFR recovery (OR, 0.30), 1-year CKD upstaging (OR, 1.78), and 1-year eGFR decline of 45 ml/min/1.73 m2 or less (OR, 2.36) (all p ≤ 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: For cT1b-2 masses, RN portends worse immediate and 1-year functional outcomes. When technically feasible and oncologically safe, efforts should be made to spare the kidney in case of large renal masses to avoid the hazard of glomerular function loss-related mortality.

AI-powered real-time annotations during urologic surgery: The future of training and quality metrics.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Real-time artificial intelligence (AI) annotation of the surgical field has the potential to automatically extract information from surgical videos, helping to create a robust surgical atlas. This content can be used for surgical education and qualitative initiatives. We demonstrate the first use of AI in urologic robotic surgery to capture live surgical video and annotate key surgical steps and safety milestones in real-time. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: While AI models possess the capability to generate automated annotations based on a collection of video images, the real-time implementation of such technology in urological robotic surgery to aid surgeon and training staff it is still pending to be studied. METHODS: We conducted an educational symposium, which broadcasted 2 live procedures, a robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and a robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). A surgical AI platform system (Theator, Palo Alto, CA) generated real-time annotations and identified operative safety milestones. This was achieved through trained algorithms, conventional video recognition, and novel Video Transfer Network technology which captures clips in full context, enabling automatic recognition and surgical mapping in real-time. RESULTS: Real-time AI annotations for procedure #1, RARP, are found in Table 1. The safety milestone annotations included the apical safety maneuver and deliberate views of structures such as the external iliac vessels and the obturator nerve. Real-time AI annotations for procedure #2, RAPN, are found in Table 1. Safety milestones included deliberate views of structures such as the gonadal vessels and the ureter. AI annotated surgical events included intraoperative ultrasound, temporary clip application and removal, hemostatic powder application, and notable hemorrhage. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time, surgical intelligence successfully showcased real-time AI annotations of 2 separate urologic robotic procedures during a live telecast. These annotations may provide the technological framework for send automatic notifications to clinical or operational stakeholders. This technology is a first step in real-time intraoperative decision support, leveraging big data to improve the quality of surgical care, potentially improve surgical outcomes, and support training and education.

Robotic nephroureterectomy supplanting open and laparoscopic approach for upper tract urothelial carcinoma management: a narrative review.

Background and Objective: The use of robotic surgery for managing upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) has increased significantly over the years. Minimally invasive techniques (MIS) are now used for approximately half of all robot-assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (RAL-NU) performed in the USA. However, there are currently no specific management guidelines that recommend the use of a robotic approach, and the available literature on this topic is limited. For this reason, we reviewed the history and current literature regarding this technique. Methods: We searched Web of Science and PubMed for articles between 1934 to 2023 using 20 different search terms and combinations. We restricted our selection to only publications in English language. Key Content and Findings: Comparative retrospective studies between techniques [open nephroureterectomy (ONU), laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LNU), and RAL-NU] and case series of surgical groups, mostly at short- and mid-term follow-up, were included. Conclusions: Robotic surgery for UTUC is on the rise and is predicted to become the preferred method for nephroureterectomy. A comparison of RAL-NU to LNU and ONU shows several advantages, including less blood loss, pain, and hospital stay, as well as a quicker recovery time. The safety and effectiveness of robotic surgery for lymphadenectomy also supports its use in RAL-NU. As more medical facilities adopt the technique and further studies support its benefits, it is likely that robotic surgery will become the preferred method for NU.

One-year healthcare costs after robotic-assisted and laparoscopic partial and radical nephrectomy: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the wide-spread adoption of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), the cost-benefit implications for partial (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) versus laparoscopic surgery (Lap) is not well established. We sought to examine the trend of adoption and 1-year healthcare expenditure of PN and RN, and compare 1-year expenditures of RAS versus Lap for PN and RN. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This cohort study used the MerativeTM MarketScan® Databases between 2013 and 2020. A total of 5,353 patients with kidney cancer undergoing PN (2,980, 55.7%) or RN (2,373, 44.3%). We compared open-conversion, length of stay (LOS), index expenditure, 1-year healthcare expenditure and utilization, and missed work-days between RAS and Lap for PN and RN. RESULTS: Adoption of PN increased overtime (47.0% to 55.8%), mainly driven by robotic PN increase. Among PN, RAS had lower open-conversion, shorter LOS and lower index expenditure than Lap. Among RN, RAS had shorter LOS, and similar open-conversion and index expenditures. During 1-year post-discharge, RAS had lower hospital outpatient visits (IRR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.85, 0.99, p = 0.029) and office-based visits (IRR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.86, 0.96, p = 0.002) for PN, translating to a 1-day less (95% CI = 0.25, 1.75, p = 0.008) missed from work for RAS. Following RN, RAS had lower 1-year readmission than Lap (O.R = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.55, 0.94, p = 0.018). RAS and Lap had comparable 1-year post-discharge expenditures for both PN (mean difference, MD = -$475, 95% CI = -$4362, $3412, p = 0.810) and RN (MD = -$4,204, 95% CI = -$13,837, $5430, p = 0.404). CONCLUSION: At index surgery, RAS was associated with shorter LOS for both PN and RN, and lower open-conversion and expenditures for PN. RAS and Lap had comparable 1-year total expenditures, despite lower healthcare visits for RAS.

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.

Low Risk of Postoperative Hernia Following Single-port Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Report From the Single-port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of postoperative hernia following different approaches of single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (SP-RARP). METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent SP-RARP between February 2019 and December 2022. Demographic and clinical information was collected from the multi-institutional, prospectively-maintained Single-Port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC) database. Data were analyzed using IBM Statistical Packaging for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 29.0 with descriptive statistics as presented. RESULTS: A total of 1103 patients were identified, consisting of 244 (22.1%), 712 (64.6%), and 147 (13.3%) cases performed via transperitoneal, extraperitoneal (EP), and transvesical (TV) approaches, respectively. During a median follow-up time of 11 months (interquartile range 5.7-17.1 months), only two cases of incisional hernia were reported. Both cases occurred following transperitoneal SP-RARP with one patient requiring surgical repair. There remains no evidence of postoperative hernia following EP and TV SP-RARP at the completion of our review. CONCLUSION: SP-RARP was associated with low risk for postoperative hernia. The risk was lower following TV and EP SP-RARP where the peritoneum is preserved.

Trends in the surgical management of kidney cancer by tumor stage, treatment modality, facility type, and location.

Partial nephrectomy (PN) is an alternative to radical nephrectomy (RN) in the appropriate localized renal tumor. The scope of PN has expanded over time and, since the advent and proliferation of minimally invasive surgery, more surgeons have access to and have been trained in laparoscopic and robotic technology. Amid the changing surgical landscape, we sought to characterize the trends in management by cancer stage, institution type, and geographic location using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). We queried the NCDB for patients with kidney cancer from 2004 to 2019. Overall, 241,311 patients who underwent PN or RN were included in the study. The nephrectomy approach was categorized as robotic partial (RPN), robotic radical (RRN), laparoscopic partial (LPN), laparoscopic radical (LRN), open or unspecified partial (OPN), and open or unspecified radical (ORN). The categorical variables were presented as frequency and percentages. Overall, there was an increase in the utilization of robotic approaches from 2010 to 2019. For cT1 tumors, the use of RPN and RRN increased from 14.27 to 33.06% and 5.24% to 19.63%, respectively. The use of ORN for cT2 and cT3 tumors declined, with rates dropping from 54.71 to 10.76% and 64.71 to 46.64%, respectively. Conversely, the utilization of RRN rose during this period. However, ORN remained the most common approach for cT3 tumors. The use of RPN increased across different facility types, with the highest utilization observed in academic/research programs. The use of ORN for cT2 and cT3 tumors declined across facility types, although it remained most prevalent in community cancer programs. The use of robot-assisted surgery to treat localized renal cancer increased in the US between 2010 and 2019 across all stages of disease. RPN became the most used approach for cT1 disease, while LRN was preferred for cT2 disease. ORN remained the approach of choice for cT3 disease throughout the study period. Trends in facility type and geographic location largely mirrored the overall trends.

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 Matched-Pair Analysis of Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for Single vs Multiple Ipsilateral Renal Masses.

Introduction: Nephron-sparing surgery is important in patients with multiple renal tumors, especially if associated with a solitary kidney or hereditary syndrome. Prior studies have shown partial nephrectomy (PN) of multiple ipsilateral renal masses to have good oncologic and renal function outcomes. We aim to compare renal function changes, complications, and warm ischemia time (WIT) of partial nephrectomy of a single renal mass (sPN) vs those of partial nephrectomy of multiple ipsilateral renal masses (mPN). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our multi-institutional PN database. We matched robotic sPN and mPN patients ∼3:1 using "nearest neighbor" propensity score matching based on age, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), total tumor size, and nephrometry score. Univariate analysis was performed, and multivariable models were fit controlling for age, gender, CCI, and tumor size. Results: Fifty mPN and 146 sPN patients were matched. The mean total tumor size was 3.3 and 3.2 cm, respectively (p = 0.363). The mean nephrometry score in both groups was 7.3 and 7.2, respectively (p = 0.772). Estimated blood loss (EBL) was 137.6 and 117.8 mL, respectively (p = 0.184). The mPN group had higher operative time (174.6 vs 156.4 minutes, p = 0.008) and WIT (17.0 vs 15.3 minutes, p = 0.032). There was no significant difference in the change in glomerular filtration rate (mPN -6.4% vs sPN -8.7%, p = 0.712). Complications (Clavien 2+) occurred in 10.2% of mPN and 11.3% of sPN patients (p = 0.837). A multivariable linear model predicts a nonstatistically significant difference of 1.4 minutes of additional WIT in the mPN group (p = 0.242). There was no statistical difference in complication rates between groups in a multivariable model (odds ratio 1.00, p = 0.991). Conclusions: Robotic PN in our multi-institutional matched comparison of mPN and sPN showed no difference in complications, renal functional outcomes, or EBL. mPN was associated with increased operative time and WIT, though the WIT difference was not significant on multivariable analysis.

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.

Single Port Versus Multiport Robot-assisted Simple Prostatectomy: A Multi-institutional Study From the Single-port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC).

OBJECTIVE: To compare robot-assisted simple prostatectomy intraoperative and postoperative.ßoutcomes between single-port (SP) and multiport (MP) robotic systems in a multi-institutional setting. METHODS: We analyzed all-consecutive robot-assisted simple prostatectomy cases done in 5 centers from January 2017 to October 2022. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and compared with appropriate tests depending on the type of variable and distribution. Statistical significance was considered when P.ß<.05. RESULTS: A total of 405 cases were analyzed:.ß249 and 156 were MP and SP, respectively. Operative times were similar between groups (P.ß=.ß.62). Estimated blood loss during surgery was significantly lower with the SP robot (P.ß<.001). Postoperatively, the SP approach required a significantly shorter hospital stay, less use of opioids, and a shorter duration of Foley catheter (P.ß<.001). There was no significant difference between the post-operative Clavien-Dindo ...3 complication rate (P.ß=.ß.30). The 30-day readmission rate of MP (10.8%) was significantly higher than for SP (0%) (P.ß<.001). De novo urge incontinence was more common in the MP group (P.ß=.ß.02). CONCLUSION: The SP robotic approach to simple prostatectomy is advantageous when it comes to postoperative comfort for patients. Specifically, it requires a shorter hospital stay, less use of opioids, and a shorter Foley catheter duration.

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.

Recent innovations in renal replacement technology and potential applications to transplantation and dialysis patients: a review of current methods.

The current standard of care for patients with end-stage renal disease (ERSD) is a kidney transplant or dialysis when a donor organ isnot available. The growing gap between patients who require a kidney transplant and the availability of donor organs as well as thenegative effects of long-term dialysis, such as infection, limited mobility, and risk of cancer development, drive the impetus to developalternative renal replacement technology. The goal of this review is to assess the potential of two of the most recent innovations inkidney transplant technology-the implantable bioartificial kidney (BAK) and kidney regeneration technology-in addressing the aforementionedproblems related to kidney replacement for patients with ERSD. Both innovations are fully implantable, autologous, personalizedwith patient cells, and can replace all aspects of kidney function. Not only do these new innovations have the potential toimprove the possibility of transplantation for more patients, they also have potential to improve the outcome of transplantation or dialysis-related renal cancer diagnosis. A major limitation of the current technology is that both implantable BAK and kidney regenerationtechnology are still in preclinical stages, and thus their potential effects cannot be comprehensively generalized to human patients.

The Role of AirSeal in Robotic Urologic Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Introduction: The adoption of a valveless trocar system in robotic surgery has allowed for stable pneumoperitoneum and constant smoke evacuation. The reported benefits of this system are improved visualization, lower abdominal pressures resulting in a decrease in cardiopulmonary complications, ileus, and postoperative pain. We endeavored to perform a systematic review of the available literature on the clinical and systems-based outcomes of AirSeal™ during robotic urologic surgery. Materials and Methods: We performed this review according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Our population of interest was any patient undergoing robotic urologic surgery. Our outcomes of interest were (1) clinical effectiveness, (2) safety parameters, and (3) health system outcomes. Results: Of 83 records identified and screened at title/abstract level, 17 were examined for full-text, of which 10 studies enrolling a total of 1765 patients (cohorts ranging in size from 11 to 642 patients) were ultimately used for review. AirSeal resulted in improved respiratory parameters, specifically lower inspiratory plateau pressure, lower minute volume, lower CO2 elimination rate, low end-tidal CO2, and higher static compliance. Two studies described decreased complication rates with low pneumoperitoneum. There were mixed results regarding AirSeal effect on operative time. Conclusion: Valveless trocar technology using the AirSeal system is a valuable adjunct to current robotic urologic surgery. The established benefits include improved cardiopulmonary parameters, particularly within the steep trendelenburg position that is common in pelvic surgery. Further studies are necessary to elucidate the effects on safety and hospital system-wide outcomes.

Moving away from mannitol infusion for partial nephrectomy: has this altered renal function?

In recent years, research has questioned the theorized renal-protective value of mannitol infusion during partial nephrectomy. This study considers whether the cessation of routine mannitol administration has shown any benefit or detriment to patients in the contemporary era. We retrospectively reviewed a multi-institution database for an association between mannitol administration and subsequent renal function during follow-up. These patients were assessed for de novo stage III chronic kidney disease (CKD III) and followed with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Statistical analysis included Mann-Whitney-U and Chi-squared tests for comparing baseline and perioperative variables with postoperative outcomes. eGFR changes were evaluated with a mixed-effects linear regression model. Nine hundred and fifteen patients were identified whose operative reports or surgeons' treatment algorithms explicitly described whether or not mannitol was administered. 667 (73%) did not receive mannitol. There were no differences in demographics, age, Charlson comorbidity index, nephrometry score, tumor size, grading, or baseline eGFR from those who received mannitol. Ischemia time and operative time appeared slightly longer with mannitol use. Patients were followed for a median of 5 months (IQR 0.5-19 months), during which mannitol use was associated with an increase in de novo CKD III (14% v. 9%, p = 0.041) and minimally worsened median eGFR on final follow-up (72.82 v. 76.06, p = 0.039). Our analysis of partial nephrectomy patients indicates that mannitol administration likely confers no short- or long-term renal benefit. Mannitol may be used at the surgeon's discretion, but if it prolongs surgery time or ischemia time, it may in fact be detrimental to outcomes.

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

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