Ashok K Hemal1, Anup Kumar. 1. Department of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. ahemal@wfubmc.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We prospectively evaluated the safety, feasibility, and efficiency of robotic radical nephrectomy (RRN) for localized renal tumors (T1-2N0M0) and compared this with laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between October 2006 to August 2007, a prospective data analysis of 15 cases of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) stage T1-2N0M0, undergoing RRN was done. These patients were compared with a contemporary cohort of 15 patients of RCC with clinical stage T1-2N0M0, undergoing LRN. To keep comparison robust, all cases were performed by a single surgeon. Demographic, intra-operative, post-operative outcomes, pathological characteristics and follow-up data of the two groups were recorded and analyzed statistically. RESULTS: Patients in group A (RRN) experienced significantly (P = 0.001) long operating time than group B (LRN). However, mean estimated blood loss, intra-operative and post-operative complications, blood transfusion rate, analgesic requirement, hospital stay and convalescence were comparable in two groups (P < 0.05). There was one conversion to open surgery in group A, and none in group B. The mean follow-up was comparable in two groups (8.3 and 9.1 months, respectively, in group A and B, P = 0.09). There were no local, port-site or distal recurrences in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic radical nephrectomy is a safe, feasible and effective for performing radical nephrectomy for localized RCC. Both groups (RRN and LRN) had comparable intra-operative, peri-operative, post-operative and oncological outcomes except for longer operating time with increased cost for RRN. In this comparative study, there were no outstanding benefits of RRN observed over LRN for localized RCC.
OBJECTIVES: We prospectively evaluated the safety, feasibility, and efficiency of robotic radical nephrectomy (RRN) for localized renal tumors (T1-2N0M0) and compared this with laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between October 2006 to August 2007, a prospective data analysis of 15 cases of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) stage T1-2N0M0, undergoing RRN was done. These patients were compared with a contemporary cohort of 15 patients of RCC with clinical stage T1-2N0M0, undergoing LRN. To keep comparison robust, all cases were performed by a single surgeon. Demographic, intra-operative, post-operative outcomes, pathological characteristics and follow-up data of the two groups were recorded and analyzed statistically. RESULTS:Patients in group A (RRN) experienced significantly (P = 0.001) long operating time than group B (LRN). However, mean estimated blood loss, intra-operative and post-operative complications, blood transfusion rate, analgesic requirement, hospital stay and convalescence were comparable in two groups (P < 0.05). There was one conversion to open surgery in group A, and none in group B. The mean follow-up was comparable in two groups (8.3 and 9.1 months, respectively, in group A and B, P = 0.09). There were no local, port-site or distal recurrences in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic radical nephrectomy is a safe, feasible and effective for performing radical nephrectomy for localized RCC. Both groups (RRN and LRN) had comparable intra-operative, peri-operative, post-operative and oncological outcomes except for longer operating time with increased cost for RRN. In this comparative study, there were no outstanding benefits of RRN observed over LRN for localized RCC.
Authors: I S Gill; A M Meraney; D K Schweizer; S S Savage; M G Hobart; G T Sung; D Nelson; A C Novick Journal: Cancer Date: 2001-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Andrew J Portis; Yan Yan; Jaime Landman; Cathy Chen; Peter H Barrett; Donald D Fentie; Yoshinari Ono; Elspeth M McDougall; Ralph V Clayman Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ketan K Badani; Ashok K Hemal; Michael Fumo; Sanjeev Kaul; Alok Shrivastava; Arumuga Kumar Rajendram; Noor Ashani Yusoff; Murali Sundram; Susan Woo; James O Peabody; Sahabudin Raja Mohamed; Mani Menon Journal: World J Urol Date: 2006-05-16 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: In Gab Jeong; Yash S Khandwala; Jae Heon Kim; Deok Hyun Han; Shufeng Li; Ye Wang; Steven L Chang; Benjamin I Chung Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-10-24 Impact factor: 56.272