PURPOSE: Laparoscopic partial/wedge nephrectomy, similar to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, is a technically challenging procedure that is performed by a limited number of expert laparoscopic surgeons. The incorporation of a robotic surgical interface has dramatically increased the use of minimally invasive pelvic surgery such that robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is commonly performed even by laparoscopically naïve surgeons. This analysis compares the outcomes of our initial experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RLPN) performed by an experienced open surgeon to that of standard laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) performed by two experienced laparoscopic surgeons. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 11 consecutive patients who underwent 12 standard LPNs (EMM, RVC) (one patient had two unilateral tumors) and 10 consecutive patients (representing the first 11 of such robotic procedures performed at our institution) who underwent 11 RLPNs (one patient had bilateral tumors managed in an asynchronous manner) (DKO). RESULTS: The mean tumor size was 2.3 cm (range 1.7-6.2 cm) for LPN and 3.1 cm (range 2.5-4 cm) for RLPN. The mean total procedure time was 289.5 minutes (range 145-369 min) for LPN and 228.7 minutes (range 98-375 min) for RLPN (P=0.102). The mean estimated blood loss was 198 mL (range 75-500 mL) for LPN v 115 mL (25-300 mL) for RLPN (P=0.169). The mean warm ischemia time was 35.3 minutes (range 15-49 min) in the LPN group and 32.1 minutes (range 30-45 minutes) in the RLPN group (P=0.501). CONCLUSIONS: Introducing a robotic interface for laparoscopic partial/wedge resection allowed a fellowship-trained urologic oncologist with limited reconstructive laparoscopic experience to achieve results comparable to those for laparoscopic partial/wedge resection performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons. In this regard, the learning curve appears truncated, similar to that with robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.
PURPOSE: Laparoscopic partial/wedge nephrectomy, similar to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, is a technically challenging procedure that is performed by a limited number of expert laparoscopic surgeons. The incorporation of a robotic surgical interface has dramatically increased the use of minimally invasive pelvic surgery such that robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is commonly performed even by laparoscopically naïve surgeons. This analysis compares the outcomes of our initial experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RLPN) performed by an experienced open surgeon to that of standard laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) performed by two experienced laparoscopic surgeons. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 11 consecutive patients who underwent 12 standard LPNs (EMM, RVC) (one patient had two unilateral tumors) and 10 consecutive patients (representing the first 11 of such robotic procedures performed at our institution) who underwent 11 RLPNs (one patient had bilateral tumors managed in an asynchronous manner) (DKO). RESULTS: The mean tumor size was 2.3 cm (range 1.7-6.2 cm) for LPN and 3.1 cm (range 2.5-4 cm) for RLPN. The mean total procedure time was 289.5 minutes (range 145-369 min) for LPN and 228.7 minutes (range 98-375 min) for RLPN (P=0.102). The mean estimated blood loss was 198 mL (range 75-500 mL) for LPN v 115 mL (25-300 mL) for RLPN (P=0.169). The mean warm ischemia time was 35.3 minutes (range 15-49 min) in the LPN group and 32.1 minutes (range 30-45 minutes) in the RLPN group (P=0.501). CONCLUSIONS: Introducing a robotic interface for laparoscopic partial/wedge resection allowed a fellowship-trained urologic oncologist with limited reconstructive laparoscopic experience to achieve results comparable to those for laparoscopic partial/wedge resection performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons. In this regard, the learning curve appears truncated, similar to that with robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.
Authors: J-P Couapel; K Bensalah; J-C Bernhard; G Pignot; L Zini; H Lang; J Rigaud; L Salomon; L Bellec; M Soulié; C Vaessen; M Rouprêt; J-L Jung; E Mourey; P Bigot; F Bruyère; J Berger; J-P Ansieau; P Gimel; F Salome; J Hubert; C Pfister; H Baumert; M-O Timsit; A Méjean; J J Patard Journal: World J Urol Date: 2013-11-24 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: A C Harbin; G Bandi; A A Vora; X Cheng; V Stanford; K McGeagh; J Murdock; R Ghasemian; J Lynch; F Bedell; M Verghese; J J Hwang Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2013-06-05
Authors: Benjamin J Scoll; Robert G Uzzo; David Y T Chen; Stephen A Boorjian; Alexander Kutikov; Brandon J Manley; Rosalia Viterbo Journal: Urology Date: 2010-01-18 Impact factor: 2.649