OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) remains challenging to even experienced laparoscopists. Complex renal tumors add an additional challenge to a minimally invasive approach to nephron-sparing surgery (NSS). We represented our technique and results of robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) for hilar, endophytic, and multiple renal tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between May 2006 and March 2008, 29 patients with complex renal tumors underwent RPN, including hilar (n = 14), endophytic (n = 12) and multiple tumors (n = 3).The hilar vessels were clamped with laparoscopic bulldog with warm ischemia. Follow-up ranged from 3 to 23 months (mean of 15 mo). The perioperative data and pathologic results were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Robotic partial nephrectomy procedures were performed successfully without complications. The mean diameter of tumors was 3.0 cm (range 2.0-4.0). The mean operative time was 197 minutes (range 172-259), and the mean blood loss was 220 ml (range 100-370). The mean warm ischemia time (WIT) was 25 min (range 16-43). The hospital stay averaged 2.5 days (range 2-3). Histopathology confirmed clear-cell carcinoma (n = 21), chromophobe cell carcinoma (n = 4), hybrid oncocytic tumor (n = 2), oncocytoma (n = 1), and cystic renal cell carcinoma (n = 1). All cases had negative surgical margins. At the 3-23 months (mean of 15 mo) follow-up, no patients experienced a significant change of glomerular filtration rate compared to preoperative levels and there was no evidence of tumor recurrence. CONCLUSION: Robotic partial nephrectomy is a safe and feasible procedure. RPN is a preferred approach for complex renal tumors when NSS is indicated. For complex and technical challenging renal tumors, robotic assistance may provide patients the benefit of minimally invasive surgery.
OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) remains challenging to even experienced laparoscopists. Complex renal tumors add an additional challenge to a minimally invasive approach to nephron-sparing surgery (NSS). We represented our technique and results of robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) for hilar, endophytic, and multiple renal tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between May 2006 and March 2008, 29 patients with complex renal tumors underwent RPN, including hilar (n = 14), endophytic (n = 12) and multiple tumors (n = 3).The hilar vessels were clamped with laparoscopic bulldog with warm ischemia. Follow-up ranged from 3 to 23 months (mean of 15 mo). The perioperative data and pathologic results were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Robotic partial nephrectomy procedures were performed successfully without complications. The mean diameter of tumors was 3.0 cm (range 2.0-4.0). The mean operative time was 197 minutes (range 172-259), and the mean blood loss was 220 ml (range 100-370). The mean warm ischemia time (WIT) was 25 min (range 16-43). The hospital stay averaged 2.5 days (range 2-3). Histopathology confirmed clear-cell carcinoma (n = 21), chromophobe cell carcinoma (n = 4), hybrid oncocytic tumor (n = 2), oncocytoma (n = 1), and cystic renal cell carcinoma (n = 1). All cases had negative surgical margins. At the 3-23 months (mean of 15 mo) follow-up, no patients experienced a significant change of glomerular filtration rate compared to preoperative levels and there was no evidence of tumor recurrence. CONCLUSION: Robotic partial nephrectomy is a safe and feasible procedure. RPN is a preferred approach for complex renal tumors when NSS is indicated. For complex and technical challenging renal tumors, robotic assistance may provide patients the benefit of minimally invasive surgery.
Authors: Matthew T Gettman; Michael L Blute; George K Chow; Richard Neururer; Georg Bartsch; Reinhard Peschel Journal: Urology Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Jim C Hu; Rebecca A Nelson; Timothy G Wilson; Mark H Kawachi; S Adam Ramin; Clayton Lau; Laura E Crocitto Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Inderbir S Gill; Louis R Kavoussi; Brian R Lane; Michael L Blute; Denise Babineau; J Roberto Colombo; Igor Frank; Sompol Permpongkosol; Christopher J Weight; Jihad H Kaouk; Michael W Kattan; Andrew C Novick Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-05-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Fernando P Secin; Thomas Jiborn; Anders S Bjartell; Georges Fournier; Laurent Salomon; Clément Claude Abbou; George P Haber; Inderbir S Gill; Laura E Crocitto; Rebecca A Nelson; José R Cansino Alcaide; Luis Martínez-Piñeiro; Michael S Cohen; Ingolf Tuerk; Claude Schulman; Troy Gianduzzo; Christopher Eden; Roxelyn Baumgartner; Joseph A Smith; Kim Entezari; Roland van Velthoven; Gunter Janetschek; Angel M Serio; Andrew J Vickers; Karim Touijer; Bertrand Guillonneau Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-06-11 Impact factor: 20.096
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
Authors: Ryan A Hankins; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Hong Truong; Joanna Shih; Gennady Bratslavsky; Peter A Pinto; W Marston Linehan; Adam R Metwalli Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Kenneth G Nepple; Gurdarshan S Sandhu; Craig G Rogers; Mohamad E Allaf; Jihad H Kaouk; Robert S Figenshau; Michael D Stifelman; Sam B Bhayani Journal: Patient Saf Surg Date: 2012-04-02