Ryan S Hsi1, Liam C Macleod1, John L Gore1, Jonathan L Wright1, Jonathan D Harper2. 1. Department of Urology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA. 2. Department of Urology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA. Electronic address: jdharper@uw.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare perioperative outcomes after robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RALPN) with hilar clamping vs parenchymal clamping. METHODS: A retrospective, single-institution review of the patients undergoing RALPN with hilar or parenchymal clamping was performed. Associations between perioperative factors and clinicopathologic outcomes were determined using the t test, Fisher's exact test, and multivariate linear regression. RESULTS: In 51 patients undergoing RALPN, 36 (71%) and 15 (29%) were performed with hilar and parenchymal clamping, respectively. Median tumor diameter was 2.8 cm for both groups (range, 1.1-6.1; P = .93). Tumor complexity by nephrometry score was mild (69% vs 80%), moderate (29% vs 20%), and high (2% vs 0%) in the respective groups (P = .65). Operative time was significantly shorter in the parenchymal clamp group (median 245 vs 320 minutes; P <.0001). There was no difference in blood loss and need for transfusion. On multivariate analysis, hilar clamping (P <.01), higher body mass index (P = .01), and higher complexity tumors (P = .02) were significantly associated with longer operative times. The parenchymal clamp group had better preservation of immediate postoperative glomerular filtration rate (GFR) from baseline to postoperative day 2 (median ΔGFR 0 vs -18 mL/min/1.73 m(2), P = .02). These differences from baseline did not persist (median ΔGFR -6 vs -7 mL/min/1.73 m(2), P = .35) at a median follow-up of 6.6 months. Final pathology determination of malignancy (P = .51) and positive margin rates (P = .26) were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Compared with hilar clamping, selective regional ischemia with the parenchymal clamp for mild-moderately complex tumors is feasible and safe during RALPN. Parenchymal clamping is associated with enhanced immediate preservation of GFR and shorter operative times.
OBJECTIVE: To compare perioperative outcomes after robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RALPN) with hilar clamping vs parenchymal clamping. METHODS: A retrospective, single-institution review of the patients undergoing RALPN with hilar or parenchymal clamping was performed. Associations between perioperative factors and clinicopathologic outcomes were determined using the t test, Fisher's exact test, and multivariate linear regression. RESULTS: In 51 patients undergoing RALPN, 36 (71%) and 15 (29%) were performed with hilar and parenchymal clamping, respectively. Median tumor diameter was 2.8 cm for both groups (range, 1.1-6.1; P = .93). Tumor complexity by nephrometry score was mild (69% vs 80%), moderate (29% vs 20%), and high (2% vs 0%) in the respective groups (P = .65). Operative time was significantly shorter in the parenchymal clamp group (median 245 vs 320 minutes; P <.0001). There was no difference in blood loss and need for transfusion. On multivariate analysis, hilar clamping (P <.01), higher body mass index (P = .01), and higher complexity tumors (P = .02) were significantly associated with longer operative times. The parenchymal clamp group had better preservation of immediate postoperative glomerular filtration rate (GFR) from baseline to postoperative day 2 (median ΔGFR 0 vs -18 mL/min/1.73 m(2), P = .02). These differences from baseline did not persist (median ΔGFR -6 vs -7 mL/min/1.73 m(2), P = .35) at a median follow-up of 6.6 months. Final pathology determination of malignancy (P = .51) and positive margin rates (P = .26) were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Compared with hilar clamping, selective regional ischemia with the parenchymal clamp for mild-moderately complex tumors is feasible and safe during RALPN. Parenchymal clamping is associated with enhanced immediate preservation of GFR and shorter operative times.
Authors: Richard E Link; Sam B Bhayani; Mohammed E Allaf; Ioannis Varkarakis; Takeshi Inagaki; Craig Rogers; Li-Ming Su; Thomas W Jarrett; Louis R Kavoussi Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: L Zini; J J Patard; U Capitanio; A Mejean; A Villers; A de La Taille; V Ficarra; M Crepel; R Bertini; L Salomon; G Verhoest; P Perrotte; K Bensalah; P Arjane; J Biserte; F Montorsi; P Karakiewicz Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2008-09-04 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: R Houston Thompson; Brian R Lane; Christine M Lohse; Bradley C Leibovich; Amr Fergany; Igor Frank; Inderbir S Gill; Michael L Blute; Steven C Campbell Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: David C Miller; John M Hollingsworth; Khaled S Hafez; Stephanie Daignault; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Hiten D Patel; Jeffrey K Mullins; Phillip M Pierorazio; Gautam Jayram; Jason E Cohen; Brian R Matlaga; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 7.450