Literature DB >> 22498208

Perioperative outcomes of robotic and open partial nephrectomy for moderately and highly complex renal lesions.

Jay Simhan1, Marc C Smaldone, Kevin J Tsai, Tianyu Li, Jose M Reyes, Daniel Canter, Alexander Kutikov, David Y T Chen, Richard E Greenberg, Robert G Uzzo, Rosalia Viterbo.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We compared outcomes in patients undergoing robotic vs open partial nephrectomy stratified by moderately and highly complex tumor nephrometry scores.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients treated with partial nephrectomy from 2007 to 2010 were grouped by tumor characteristics into low-nephrotomy score 4 to 6, moderate-7 to 9 and high-10 to 12 anatomical complexity cohorts. Lesions with low complexity were excluded from study. Demographic, surgical and pathological outcomes were compared between patients undergoing robotic vs open partial nephrectomy in the moderately and highly complex cohorts.
RESULTS: A total of 281 patients, of whom 63.3% were male, with a mean±SD age of 58.1±11.7 years and a mean followup of 21.3±16.3 months underwent partial nephrectomy. Moderately complex lesions were noted in 81 robotic and 136 open partial nephrectomy cases with a mean tumor size of 3.8±2.2 cm. Highly complex lesions were noted in 10 robotic and 54 open partial nephrectomy cases with a mean tumor size of 4.8±3.0 cm. There were no differences between the groups in patient age, race, gender, body mass index or American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. Cases treated with open partial nephrectomy for moderately or highly complex lesions were of higher pathological stage (p=0.02 and 0.01, respectively). The percent change in creatinine and the glomerular filtration rate were similar for robotic and open partial nephrectomy in the moderately and highly complex tumor groups. In patients undergoing robotic vs open partial nephrectomy for moderately complex lesions we noted differences in pathological tumor size (mean 3.2±1.8 vs 4.1±2.3 cm, p<0.0001) and operative time (205.9±52.5 vs 189.5±52.0 minutes, p<0.01) while decreased estimated blood loss (131.3±127.8 vs 256.5±291.3 ml) and hospital length of stay (3.7±1.6 vs 5.6±3.9 days, each p<0.001) were observed in the robotic group. Comparison of highly complex lesions revealed decreased hospital length of stay (2.9±1.4 vs 6.1±4.1 days, p<0.0001) in the robotic partial nephrectomy group.
CONCLUSIONS: In our large institutional series of patients with moderate and highly complex solid renal tumors classified by the nephrometry score robotic partial nephrectomy offered comparable perioperative and functional outcomes with the added benefit of decreased hospital length of stay.
Copyright © 2012 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22498208     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.01.064

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  25 in total

Review 1.  The role of minimally invasive surgery in multifocal renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Serge Ginzburg; Robert G Uzzo; Alexander Kutikov
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Predicting length of stay after robotic partial nephrectomy.

Authors:  Wassim M Bazzi; Daniel D Sjoberg; Angelica A C Grasso; Melanie Bernstein; Raul Parra; Jonathan A Coleman
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2015-07-09       Impact factor: 2.370

3.  Variability of inter-observer agreement on feasibility of partial nephrectomy before and after neoadjuvant axitinib for locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC): independent analysis from a phase II trial.

Authors:  Jose A Karam; Catherine E Devine; Bryan M Fellman; Diana L Urbauer; E Jason Abel; Mohamad E Allaf; Axel Bex; Brian R Lane; R Houston Thompson; Christopher G Wood
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2015-06-29       Impact factor: 5.588

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

Review 5.  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

6.  Comparison of renal functional outcomes in exactly matched pairs between robot-assisted partial nephrectomy using warm ischemia and open partial nephrectomy using cold ischemia using diethylene triamine penta-acetic acid renal scintigraphy.

Authors:  Sangjun Yoo; Chanwoo Lee; Chunwoo Lee; Dalsan You; In Gab Jeong; Choung-Soo Kim
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2016-02-20       Impact factor: 2.370

7.  Nephrometry score matched robotic vs. laparoscopic vs. open partial nephrectomy.

Authors:  Pooya Banapour; George A Abdelsayed; Zoe Bider-Canfield; Peter A Elliott; Patrick S Kilday; Gary W Chien
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2018-03-19

8.  Robotic and open partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors: a matched-pair comparison with a long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Yubin Wang; Jinkai Shao; Xin Ma; Qingshan Du; Huijie Gong; Xu Zhang
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  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

10.  Open versus robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy: a multicenter comparison study of perioperative results and complications.

Authors:  Andrea Minervini; Gianni Vittori; Alessandro Antonelli; Antonio Celia; Simone Crivellaro; Donato Dente; Vincenzo Di Santo; Bruno Frea; Mauro Gacci; Alberto Gritti; Lorenzo Masieri; Alessandro Morlacco; Angelo Porreca; Bernardo Rocco; Paolo Parma; Claudio Simeone; Stefano Zaramella; Marco Carini; Sergio Serni
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-08-04       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.