OBJECTIVES: To present comparative outcomes among matched patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) or laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) by a single surgeon at a single institution. METHODS: Between March 2002 and August 2009, a retrospective review of 261 consecutive patients who underwent LPN (n = 186) or RPN (n = 75) by a single surgeon was performed. Patients were matched for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, and tumor size, side, and location. Perioperative outcomes were compared. RESULTS: A matched cohort of 150 patients who underwent RPN (n = 75) or LPN (n = 75) were compared. There was no significant difference between the 2 cohorts with respect to patient age (P = .17), BMI (P = .68), ASA score (P = .96), preoperative estimated glomerulofiltration rate (eGFR; P = .54), or tumor size (P = .17). Mean operative time for RPN was 200 vs 197 minutes for LPN (P = .75). Mean estimated blood loss (EBL) was higher in the RPN cohort (323 vs 222 mL, P = .01). There was no significant difference with respect to warm ischemia time (18.2 minutes vs 20.3 minutes, P = .27), length of hospitalization (P = .84), percent change in eGFR (P = .80), or adverse events (P = .52). All surgical margins were negative. CONCLUSIONS: Although initial surgical experience with RPN was included in this study and compared with a vast experience in LPN by the same surgeon, RPN offers at least comparable outcomes to LPN.
OBJECTIVES: To present comparative outcomes among matched patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) or laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) by a single surgeon at a single institution. METHODS: Between March 2002 and August 2009, a retrospective review of 261 consecutive patients who underwent LPN (n = 186) or RPN (n = 75) by a single surgeon was performed. Patients were matched for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, and tumor size, side, and location. Perioperative outcomes were compared. RESULTS: A matched cohort of 150 patients who underwent RPN (n = 75) or LPN (n = 75) were compared. There was no significant difference between the 2 cohorts with respect to patient age (P = .17), BMI (P = .68), ASA score (P = .96), preoperative estimated glomerulofiltration rate (eGFR; P = .54), or tumor size (P = .17). Mean operative time for RPN was 200 vs 197 minutes for LPN (P = .75). Mean estimated blood loss (EBL) was higher in the RPN cohort (323 vs 222 mL, P = .01). There was no significant difference with respect to warm ischemia time (18.2 minutes vs 20.3 minutes, P = .27), length of hospitalization (P = .84), percent change in eGFR (P = .80), or adverse events (P = .52). All surgical margins were negative. CONCLUSIONS: Although initial surgical experience with RPN was included in this study and compared with a vast experience in LPN by the same surgeon, RPN offers at least comparable outcomes to LPN.
Authors: Stephen B Williams; Ravi Kacker; Mehrdad Alemozaffar; Ignacio San Francisco; Jodi Mechaber; Andrew A Wagner Journal: World J Urol Date: 2011-01-29 Impact factor: 4.226
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