Literature DB >> 21144643

Multi-institutional analysis of robotic partial nephrectomy for hilar versus nonhilar lesions in 446 consecutive cases.

Lori M Dulabon1, Jihad H Kaouk, Georges-Pascal Haber, Douglas S Berkman, Craig G Rogers, Firas Petros, Sam B Bhayani, Michael D Stifelman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive approaches to partial nephrectomy have been rapidly gaining popularity but require advanced laparoscopic surgical skills. Renal hilar tumors, due to their anatomic location, pose additional technical challenges to the operating surgeon.
OBJECTIVE: We compared the outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) for hilar and nonhilar tumors in our large multicenter contemporary series of patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data on 446 consecutive patients who underwent RPN by renal surgeons experienced in minimally invasive techniques at four academic institutions from June 2006 to March 2010. Patients were stratified into two groups: those with hilar lesions and those with nonhilar lesions. MEASUREMENTS: Patient demographics, operative outcomes, and postoperative outcomes, including oncologic outcomes, were recorded. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Forty-one patients (9%) had hilar renal masses; 405 patients (91%) had nonhilar masses. There was no statistical differences in patient demographics except for larger median tumor size in the hilar cohort (3.2 cm vs 2.6 cm; p=0.001). The only significant difference in operative outcomes was an increase in warm ischemia times for the hilar group versus the nonhilar group (26.3±7.4 min vs 19.6±10.0 min; p=<0.0001). There were no differences in postoperative outcomes; however, there was a trend for increased risk of malignancy and higher stage tumors in the hilar lesion group. Final pathologic margin status was similar in both groups. Only one patient in the nonhilar group had evidence of recurrence at 21 mo. The study was limited by the lack of standard anatomic classification of renal tumors and the potential influence of the surgeons' prior robotic experience.
CONCLUSIONS: The data represent the largest series of its kind and strongly suggest that RPN is a safe, effective, and feasible option for the minimally invasive approach to renal hilar tumors with no increased risk of adverse outcomes compared with nonhilar tumors in the hands of experienced robotic surgeons.
Copyright © 2010 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21144643     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.11.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  38 in total

1.  Kidney cancer: zero-ischemia partial nephrectomy--further evaluations are needed.

Authors:  Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Alexander Mottrie
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  Endoscopic robot-assisted simple enucleation (ERASE) for clinical T1 renal masses: description of the technique and early postoperative results.

Authors:  Andrea Minervini; Agostino Tuccio; Lorenzo Masieri; Domenico Veneziano; Gianni Vittori; Giampaolo Siena; Mauro Gacci; Graziano Vignolini; Andrea Mari; Arcangelo Sebastianelli; Matteo Salvi; Sergio Serni; Marco Carini
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  The emergence of surgeon-controlled robotic surgery in urologic oncology.

Authors:  Timil H Patel; Paurush Babbar; Ashok K Hemal
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-12-07

Review 4.  Current controversies and challenges in robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomies.

Authors:  Aaron A Laviana; Jim C Hu
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-04-04       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Transition from open partial nephrectomy directly to robotic surgery: experience of a single surgeon to achieve "TRIFECTA".

Authors:  Tiago Mendonça Lopez Castilho; Gustavo Caserta Lemos; Jonathan Doyun Cha; José Roberto Colombo; Oliver Rojas Claros; Maria Beatriz Lemos; Arie Carneiro
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2020 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.541

Review 6.  Open partial nephrectomy: ancient art or currently available technique?

Authors:  Mauro Seveso; Fabio Grizzi; Giorgio Bozzini; Alberto Mandressi; Giorgio Guazzoni; Gianluigi Taverna
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 7.  Current status of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy.

Authors:  Jose M Reyes; Marc C Smaldone; Robert G Uzzo; Rosalia Viterbo
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 3.092

8.  Can selective arterial clamping with fluorescence imaging preserve kidney function during robotic partial nephrectomy?

Authors:  Tyler R McClintock; Marc A Bjurlin; James S Wysock; Michael S Borofsky; Tracy P Marien; Chinonyerem Okoro; Michael D Stifelman
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2014-06-06       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: analysis of the first 100 cases from a single institution.

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

10.  Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for renal tumors larger than 4 cm: results of a multicenter, international series.

Authors:  Vincenzo Ficarra; Sam Bhayani; James Porter; Nicolò Buffi; Robin Lee; Andrea Cestari; Giacomo Novara; Alexander Mottrie
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-09-11       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.