PURPOSE: To determine the feasibility and safety of robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN), we compared the operative outcomes of patients who had undergone RPN with those of patients who had undergone laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between February 2009 and June 2010, 13 patients underwent transperitoneal RPN (group 1) and 14 patients underwent transperitoneal LPN (group 2) by a single surgeon. The operative outcomes of the 2 groups were compared by using Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: All cases were completed successfully without conversion to open surgery. The mean operative time was 153.2±22.3 and 117.5±32.0 minutes in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p=0.003). The mean robotic console time of group 1 was 101.2±21.5 minutes, and the mean laparoscopic time of group 2 was 86.8±32.3 minutes (p=0.139). The mean warm ischemic time was 35.3±8.5 minutes and 36.4±6.8 minutes in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p=0.823). The mean estimated blood loss was 283.6±113.5 ml and 264.1±163.7 ml (p=0.382), respectively. The mean length of hospital stay was 6.1 and 5.3 days (p=0.290), respectively. The mean tumor size was 2.7±1.2 cm and 2.0±1.2 cm (p=0.035), respectively. The surgical margins were negative in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: Although the operative time of RPN was longer than that of LPN, there were no significant differences in operative outcomes including robotic console time and laparoscopic time between the procedures.
PURPOSE: To determine the feasibility and safety of robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN), we compared the operative outcomes of patients who had undergone RPN with those of patients who had undergone laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between February 2009 and June 2010, 13 patients underwent transperitoneal RPN (group 1) and 14 patients underwent transperitoneal LPN (group 2) by a single surgeon. The operative outcomes of the 2 groups were compared by using Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: All cases were completed successfully without conversion to open surgery. The mean operative time was 153.2±22.3 and 117.5±32.0 minutes in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p=0.003). The mean robotic console time of group 1 was 101.2±21.5 minutes, and the mean laparoscopic time of group 2 was 86.8±32.3 minutes (p=0.139). The mean warm ischemic time was 35.3±8.5 minutes and 36.4±6.8 minutes in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p=0.823). The mean estimated blood loss was 283.6±113.5 ml and 264.1±163.7 ml (p=0.382), respectively. The mean length of hospital stay was 6.1 and 5.3 days (p=0.290), respectively. The mean tumor size was 2.7±1.2 cm and 2.0±1.2 cm (p=0.035), respectively. The surgical margins were negative in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: Although the operative time of RPN was longer than that of LPN, there were no significant differences in operative outcomes including robotic console time and laparoscopic time between the procedures.
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: Sompol Permpongkosol; Herman S Bagga; Frederico R Romero; Myrna Sroka; Thomas W Jarrett; Louis R Kavoussi Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Monish Aron; Phillipe Koenig; Jihad H Kaouk; Mike M Nguyen; Mihir M Desai; Inderbir S Gill Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-03-11 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Craig G Rogers; Adam Metwalli; Adam M Blatt; Gennady Bratslavsky; Mani Menon; W Marston Linehan; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-10-18 Impact factor: 7.450
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