OBJECTIVES: To report experience with 100 robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) operations performed at our institution. Nephron-sparing surgery is an established treatment for patients with small renal masses. The laparoscopic approach has emerged as an alternative to open nephron-sparing surgery, but it is recognized to be technically challenging. The robotic surgical system may enable faster and greater technical proficiency, facilitating a minimally invasive approach to more difficult lesions while reducing ischemia time. METHODS: A total of 100 RAPN operations were performed for suspicious solid renal lesions during a 21-month period. Clinicopathologic variables, nephrometry scores, operative parameters, and renal functional outcomes were prospectively recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Median tumor size was 2.8 cm (range, 1.0-8). Nephrometry scores of resected lesions were low in 47.9% of patients, medium in 45.7%, and high in 6.4% of patients. Forty-seven percent of patients had tumors>50% intraparenchymal, and 61.7% had tumors located less than 7 mm away from the renal sinus or collecting system. In 17% of patients, the tumors were touching a first-order vessel in the renal hilum. Mean warm ischemia time was 25.5 minutes (range, 0-53). Mean change in postoperative glomerular filtration rate improved 6.32 mL/min/1.73 m2 (range, -41.9 to 68.9). Histology was renal cell carcinoma in 81% (87/107) of tumors. There were 5 microscopically positive margins on final pathology (5.7%). Major and minor complication rates were 6% and 5%, respectively. There were 2 conversions to open surgery. CONCLUSIONS: RAPN seems to be a safe and technically feasible minimally invasive approach to nephron-sparing surgery even in more complex cases, with acceptable pathologic and renal function outcomes. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES: To report experience with 100 robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) operations performed at our institution. Nephron-sparing surgery is an established treatment for patients with small renal masses. The laparoscopic approach has emerged as an alternative to open nephron-sparing surgery, but it is recognized to be technically challenging. The robotic surgical system may enable faster and greater technical proficiency, facilitating a minimally invasive approach to more difficult lesions while reducing ischemia time. METHODS: A total of 100 RAPN operations were performed for suspicious solid renal lesions during a 21-month period. Clinicopathologic variables, nephrometry scores, operative parameters, and renal functional outcomes were prospectively recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Median tumor size was 2.8 cm (range, 1.0-8). Nephrometry scores of resected lesions were low in 47.9% of patients, medium in 45.7%, and high in 6.4% of patients. Forty-seven percent of patients had tumors>50% intraparenchymal, and 61.7% had tumors located less than 7 mm away from the renal sinus or collecting system. In 17% of patients, the tumors were touching a first-order vessel in the renal hilum. Mean warm ischemia time was 25.5 minutes (range, 0-53). Mean change in postoperative glomerular filtration rate improved 6.32 mL/min/1.73 m2 (range, -41.9 to 68.9). Histology was renal cell carcinoma in 81% (87/107) of tumors. There were 5 microscopically positive margins on final pathology (5.7%). Major and minor complication rates were 6% and 5%, respectively. There were 2 conversions to open surgery. CONCLUSIONS:RAPN seems to be a safe and technically feasible minimally invasive approach to nephron-sparing surgery even in more complex cases, with acceptable pathologic and renal function outcomes. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: A Breda; S V Stepanian; J Liao; J S Lam; G Guazzoni; M Stifelman; K Perry; A Celia; G Breda; P Fornara; S Jackman; A Rosales; J Palou; M Grasso; V Pansadoro; V Disanto; F Porpiglia; C Milani; C Abbou; R Gaston; G Janetschek; N A Soomro; J de la Rosette; M P Laguna; P G Schulam Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-05-11 Impact factor: 7.450
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: 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: Ofer Yossepowitch; R Houston Thompson; Bradley C Leibovich; Scott E Eggener; Joseph A Pettus; Eugene D Kwon; Harry W Herr; Michael L Blute; Paul Russo Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Leslie A Deane; Hak J Lee; Geoffrey N Box; Ori Melamud; David S Yee; Jose Benito A Abraham; David S Finley; James F Borin; Elspeth M McDougall; Ralph V Clayman; David K Ornstein Journal: J Endourol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Zhuo-Wei Liu; Ephrem O Olweny; Gang Yin; Stephen Faddegon; Yung K Tan; Woong Kyu Han; Jeffrey A Cadeddu Journal: World J Urol Date: 2012-04-28 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: Scott Tobis; Sriram Venigalla; Joy K Knopf; Emelian Scosyrev; Erdal N Erturk; Dragan J Golijanin; Jean V Joseph; Hani Rashid; Guan Wu Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2011-06-10