Evaluation of oncological outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy according to the type of hilar control approach (On-clamp vs Off-clamp), a multicentric study of the French network of research on kidney cancer-UROCCR 58-NCT03293563.

PURPOSE: To compare off-clamp vs on-clamp robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in terms of oncological outcomes, and to assess the impact of surgical experience (SE). METHODS: We extracted data of a contemporary cohort of 1359 patients from the prospectively maintained database of the French national network of research on kidney cancer (UROCCR). The primary objective was to assess the positive surgical margin (PSM) rate. We also evaluated the oncological outcomes regardless of the surgical experience (SE) by dividing patients into three groups of SE as a secondary endpoints. SE was defined by the caseload of RPN per surgeon per year. For the continuous variables, we used Mann-Whitney and Student tests. We assessed survival analysis according to hilar control approach by Kaplan-Meier curves with log rank tests. A logistic regression multivariate analysis was used to evaluate the independent factors of PSM. RESULTS: Outcomes of 224 off-clamp RPN for RCC were compared to 1135 on-clamp RPN. PSM rate was not statistically different, with 5.6% in the off-clamp group, and 11% in the on-clamp group (p = 0.1). When assessing survival analysis for overall survival (OS), local recurrence-free survival (LR), and metastasis-free survival (MFS) according to hilar clamping approach, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with p value log rank = 0.2, 0.8, 0.1, respectively. In multivariate analysis assessing SE, hilar control approach, hospital volume (HV), RENAL score, gender, Age, ECOG, EBL, BMI, and indication of NSS, age at surgery was associated with PSM (odds ratio [OR] 1.03 (95% CI 1.00-1.04), 0.02), whereas SE, HV, and type of hilar control approach were not predictive factors of PSM. CONCLUSION: Hilar control approach seems to have no impact on PSM of RPN for RCC. Our findings were consistent with randomized trials.

Positive surgical margin's impact on short-term oncological prognosis after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (MARGINS study: UroCCR no 96).

The oncological impact of positive surgical margins (PSM) after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is still under debate. We compared PSM and Negative Surgical Margins (NSM) in terms of recurrence-free survival (RFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) after RAPN, and we identified predictive factors of PSM. Multi-institutional study using the UroCCR database, which prospectively included 2166 RAPN between April 2010 and February 2021 (CNIL DR 2013-206; NCT03293563). Two groups were retrospectively compared: PSM versus NSM. Prognostic factors were assessed using Kaplan-Meyer curves with log-Rank test, cox hazard proportional risk model and logistic regression after univariate comparison. 136 patients had PSM (6.3%) and 2030 (93.7%) had NSM. During a median follow-up of 19 (9-36) months after RAPN, 160 (7.4%) recurrences were reported. Kaplan-Meier curves and analysis suggested that RFS, MFS and OS were not affected by a PSM (p = 0.68; 0.71; 0.88, respectively). In multivariate analysis predictors of PSM were a lower RENAL score (p = 0.001), longer warm ischemia time (WIT) (p = 0.003) and Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma (chrRCC) (p = 0.043). This study found no impact of PSM on RFS, MFS or OS, and predictors of PSM were the RENAL score, WIT and chrRCC.

Is night-time surgical procedure for renal graft at higher risk than during the day? A single center study cohort of 179 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Various surgical centers tend to postpone a kidney transplantation (KT) to the following morning than to operate at night-time. The objective of our study was to assess whether there was any difference between daytime and night-time renal transplantation in our institution. METHOD: This study is a retrospective monocentric study including all the KTs that were performed between 2012 and 2013 by transplant expert surgeons in our institution. Clavien-Dindo (CD) complications were classified according to 7 variables going from 1 to 5. Time before postgraft diuresis and delayed graft function (DGF) were also analyzed. Two groups of patients were formed according to threshold value of incision time (6.30 p.m.). Data comparison were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test. RESULTS: A total of 179 patients were included. Median follow-up was 24 months. Cold ischemia time was longer in the night-time transplantation (1082 vs. 807 min, p < .001), but rewarming time was shorter (47.24 vs. 52.15 min, p = .628). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups using the Kruskal-Wallis method for CD complications (Qobs: 0.076; p = .735). CD complications proportion was similar, with a majority of grade II complications (72.7% daytime group vs. 75.4% night-time group (p = .735). DGF (19 patients for daytime group vs. 13 patients for night-time group, p = .359) and time before postgraft diuresis (4.65 days daytime group vs. 5.27 days night-time group, p = .422) were similar between both groups. Multivariate analysis did not show significant predictors of CD complications Grade 3 and more. CONCLUSION: Night-time renal transplantation did not induce more postoperative CD complications than diurnal procedures in our cohort, challenging the false preconceptions that allow surgical teams to delay this surgery.