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.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy-Technique and peri-operative outcomes in an Australian transplant center.

INTRODUCTION: Demand for donor kidneys far exceeds the availability of organs from deceased donors. Living donor kidneys are an important part of addressing this shortfall, and laparoscopic nephrectomy is an important strategy to reduce donor morbidity and increase the acceptability of living donation. AIM: To retrospectively review the intraoperative and postoperative safety, technique, and outcomes of patients undergoing donor nephrectomy at a single tertiary hospital in Sydney, Australia. METHOD: Retrospective capture and analysis of clinical, demographic, and operative data for all living donor nephrectomies performed between 2007 and 2022 at a single University Hospital in Sydney, Australia. RESULTS: Four hundred and seventy-two donor nephrectomies were performed: 471 were laparoscopic, two of which were converted from laparoscopic to open and hand-assisted nephrectomy, respectively, and one (.2%) underwent primary open nephrectomy. The mean warm ischemia time was 2.8 min (±1.3 SD, median 3 min, range 2-8 min) and the mean length of stay (LOS) was 4.1 days (±1.0 SD). The mean renal function on discharge was 103 µmol/L (±23.0 SD). Seventy-seven (16%) patients had a complication with no Clavien Dindo IV or V complications seen. Outcomes demonstrated no impact of donor age, gender, kidney side, relationship to the recipient, vascular complexity; or surgeon experience, on complication rate or LOS. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a safe and effective procedure with minimal morbidity and no mortality in this series.

Outcome of laparoscopic nephron sparing surgery using a Satinsky clamp for hilar control: a trusted tool (SKIMS experience).

BACKGROUND: Nephron sparing surgery is a well-established surgical procedure for patients with small/bilateral renal masses. During the procedure, hilar control can be achieved by using bulldog clamps individually on the renal vessels, the renal artery alone without clamping the vein, or a laparoscopic Satinsky clamp for en bloc hilar clamping. In our series, we described the outcome of laparoscopic nephron sparing surgery using a Satinsky clamp for hilar control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All eligible cases with confirmed diagnosis of a renal mass were advised of nephron sparing surgery. The short-term outcomes were evaluated by warm ischemia time (using a Satinsky clamp especially when CT renal angiography was not available), average blood loss, and length of postoperative hospital stay. The oncological outcome was evaluated by noting the surgical margins of histopathological specimen, local recurrence, and distant metastasis. RESULTS: Of 30 cases 20 were male. The mean age was 54.25 years. On preoperative evaluation, 24 cases were T1a stage and the rest were 6 T1b stage. Four tumors were located in the upper pole, 4 in the posterior midpole, and 22 in the lower pole. Twenty-six patients had a low complexity score on RENAL scoring (ie, 4-6) and 4 patients a medium complexity score (ie, 7-9). Three patients were converted to open partial nephrectomy because of technical difficulty in intracorporeal suturing and difficulty in achieving hemostasis. Among these 3 patients, 2 patients had posterior base tumors and 1 had a lower polar tumor. Average blood loss was 350 ml, warm ischemia time was 28.46 minutes, and postoperative stay was 4.55 days. Of 30 specimens for histopathology, 23 (76%) were clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC), 4 (13%) were papillary RCC, 1 (3.3%) was chromophobe RCC, whereas 2 (6.6%) were benign (oncocytoma). Margins were free of tumors in all the patients with no recurrence in 2 years of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy by using a Satinsky clamp as a tool for en bloc hilar clamping in the proper axis at the hilum takes care of multiple vessels irrespective of size and number, particularly when renal angiography is not available. This technique of en bloc hilar clamping is quite useful especially in developing countries where robotic facilities are not available. The Satinsky clamp decreases blood loss and intraoperative time.

On-clamp versus off-clamp robotic partial nephrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The debate on the pros and cons of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy performed with (on-clamp) or without (off-clamp) renal artery clamping is ongoing. The aim of this meta-analysis is to summarize the available evidence on the comparative studies assessing the outcomes of these two approaches. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature on PubMed, ScienceDirect®, and Embase® was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Statement (PRISMA). Only comparative and case-control studies were submitted to full-text assessment and meta-analysis. RevMan 5.3 software was used. RESULTS: From the initial retrieval of 1937 studies, 15 fulfilling inclusion criteria were selected and provided 2075 patients for analysis (702 off-clamp, 1373 on-clamp). Baseline tumor's features showed a significant difference in size (weighted mean difference: -0.58 cm; 95% confidence interval: [-1.06, -0.10]; p = 0.02) and R.E.N.A.L. score (weighted mean difference: -0.53; 95% confidence interval: [-0.81, -0.25]; p = 0.0002), but not in the exophytic property, the location, and the PADUA score. Pooled analysis revealed shorter operative time (p = 0.02) and higher estimated blood loss (p = 0.0002) for the off-clamp group. Overall complication and transfusion rates were similar, while higher major complication rate was observed in the on-clamp approach (5.6% vs 1.9%, p = 0.03). No differences in oncological outcomes were found. Finally, functional outcomes (assessed by estimated glomerular filtration rate at early postoperative, 3 month, 6 month, and last available follow-up) were not statistically different. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis shows that off-clamp robot-assisted partial nephrectomy is reserved to smaller renal masses. Under such conditions, no differences with the on-clamp approach emerged.