Literature DB >> 24486306

Robotic partial nephrectomy with superselective versus main artery clamping: a retrospective comparison.

Mihir M Desai1, Andre Luis de Castro Abreu2, Scott Leslie2, Jei Cai2, Eric Yi-Hsiu Huang2, Pierre-Marie Lewandowski2, Dennis Lee2, Arjuna Dharmaraja2, Andre K Berger2, Alvin Goh2, Osamu Ukimura2, Monish Aron2, Inderbir S Gill2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised regarding partial nephrectomy (PN) techniques that do not occlude the main renal artery.
OBJECTIVE: Compare the perioperative outcomes of superselective versus main renal artery control during robotic PN. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective analysis of 121 consecutive patients undergoing robotic PN using superselective control (group 1, n=58) or main artery clamping (group 2, n=63). INTERVENTION: Group 1 underwent tumor-specific devascularization, maintaining ongoing arterial perfusion to the renal remnant at all times. Group 2 underwent main renal artery clamping, creating global renal ischemia. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Perioperative and functional data were evaluated. The Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: All robotic procedures were successful, all surgical margins were negative, and no kidneys were lost. Compared with group 2 tumors, group 1 tumors were larger (3.4 vs 2.6cm, p=0.004), more commonly hilar (24% vs 6%, p=0.009), and more complex (PADUA 10 vs 8, p=0.009). Group 1 patients had longer median operative time (p<0.001) and transfusion rates (24% vs 6%, p<0.01) but similar estimated blood loss (200 vs 150ml), perioperative complications (15% vs 13%), and hospital stay. Group 1 patients had less decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate at discharge (0% vs 11%, p=0.01) and at last follow-up (11% vs 17%, p=0.03). On computed tomography volumetrics, group 1 patients trended toward greater parenchymal preservation (95% vs 90%, p=0.07) despite larger tumor size and volume (19 vs 8ml, p=0.002). Main limitations are the retrospective study design, small cohort, and short follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic PN with superselective vascular control enables tumor excision without any global renal ischemia. Blood loss, complications, and positive margin rates were low and similar to main artery clamping. In this initial developmental phase, limitations included more perioperative transfusions and longer operative time. The advantage of superselective clamping for better renal function preservation requires validation by prospective randomized studies. PATIENT
SUMMARY: Preserving global blood flow to the kidney during robotic partial nephrectomy (PN) does not lead to a higher complication rate and may lead to better postoperative renal function compared with clamped PN techniques.
Copyright © 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Nephron-sparing surgery; Partial nephrectomy; Robotic; Superselective clamping; Warm ischemia time; Zero-ischemia

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24486306     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.017

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


  28 in total

Review 1.  Novel Technologies in Urologic Surgery: a Rapidly Changing Scenario.

Authors:  Giorgio Gandaglia; Peter Schatteman; Geert De Naeyer; Frederiek D'Hondt; Alexandre Mottrie
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 2.  Renal Function Following Nephron Sparing Procedures: Simply a Matter of Volume?

Authors:  Michael J Biles; G Joel DeCastro; Solomon L Woldu
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Robotic sequential right adrenalectomy and zero ischemia left partial nephrectomy in a patient with synchronous pheochromocytoma and renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Abdullah Erdem Canda; Özer Ural Çakıcı; Kemal Ener; Ali Fuat Atmaca
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2015-02-18

4.  Re: Comparison of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy for Pentafecta perioperative and renal functional outcomes.

Authors:  Mustafa Zafer Temiz
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-11-04       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 5.  [Standard surgery for small renal masses (<4 cm)].

Authors:  S K Frees; R Mager; H Borgmann; W Jäger; C Thomas; A Haferkamp
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 6.  Selective Arterial Clamping Versus Hilar Clamping for Minimally Invasive Partial Nephrectomy.

Authors:  Mona Yezdani; Sue-Jean Yu; David I Lee
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 3.092

7.  Zero ischemia robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy in Alberta: Initial results of a novel approach.

Authors:  Ellen Forbes; Douglas Cheung; Adam Kinnaird; Blair St Martin
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 8.  A Literature Review of Renal Surgical Anatomy and Surgical Strategies for Partial Nephrectomy.

Authors:  Tobias Klatte; Vincenzo Ficarra; Christian Gratzke; Jihad Kaouk; Alexander Kutikov; Veronica Macchi; Alexandre Mottrie; Francesco Porpiglia; James Porter; Craig G Rogers; Paul Russo; R Houston Thompson; Robert G Uzzo; Christopher G Wood; Inderbir S Gill
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 9.  Current Status of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Zachary L Smith
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 10.  3-D Imaging and Simulation for Nephron Sparing Surgical Training.

Authors:  Hamed Ahmadi; Jen-Jane Liu
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 3.092

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.