OBJECTIVE: To present our robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) experience for renal masses ≥ 7 cm and compare the surgical outcomes in this cohort with those obtained for small (≤ 4 cm) renal masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our institutional review board-approved RPN database and identified patients undergoing RPN for tumors ≥ 7 cm. Surgical technique, renal function, oncologic, and pathologic data were analyzed and compared with the RPN for renal masses ≤ 4 cm. RESULTS: Overall, 441 patients were identified for the purpose of this study, including 29 cases and 412 controls. Median operative time (200 vs 180 min; P = .005), warm ischemia time (26.5 vs 19 min; P <.001), and estimated blood loss (250 mL [353] vs 150 mL [150]; P <.001) were significantly lower in the control group. Postoperative complications were significantly higher in the case group (37.9% vs 15.8%; P = .005). However, the percentages of major complications (Clavien grade ≥ III) were comparable (18.2% vs 17%; P = .57 for cases and controls respectively). Postoperative blood transfusion was higher for larger tumor group (24.1% vs 4.1%; P <.001). Positive margins were similar between groups (5.9% vs 3.3%; P = .45 for cases and controls respectively). There was no difference in estimated glomerular filtration rate decline between the two groups (12.2% vs 15.8% decline; P = .98). CONCLUSION: RPN represents a feasible and safe nephron-sparing surgery approach for highly selected (mostly exophytic growth pattern, polar location, and likelihood of benign histology) renal masses ≥ 7 cm in diameter.
OBJECTIVE: To present our robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) experience for renal masses ≥ 7 cm and compare the surgical outcomes in this cohort with those obtained for small (≤ 4 cm) renal masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our institutional review board-approved RPN database and identified patients undergoing RPN for tumors ≥ 7 cm. Surgical technique, renal function, oncologic, and pathologic data were analyzed and compared with the RPN for renal masses ≤ 4 cm. RESULTS: Overall, 441 patients were identified for the purpose of this study, including 29 cases and 412 controls. Median operative time (200 vs 180 min; P = .005), warm ischemia time (26.5 vs 19 min; P <.001), and estimated blood loss (250 mL [353] vs 150 mL [150]; P <.001) were significantly lower in the control group. Postoperative complications were significantly higher in the case group (37.9% vs 15.8%; P = .005). However, the percentages of major complications (Clavien grade ≥ III) were comparable (18.2% vs 17%; P = .57 for cases and controls respectively). Postoperative blood transfusion was higher for larger tumor group (24.1% vs 4.1%; P <.001). Positive margins were similar between groups (5.9% vs 3.3%; P = .45 for cases and controls respectively). There was no difference in estimated glomerular filtration rate decline between the two groups (12.2% vs 15.8% decline; P = .98). CONCLUSION:RPN represents a feasible and safe nephron-sparing surgery approach for highly selected (mostly exophytic growth pattern, polar location, and likelihood of benign histology) renal masses ≥ 7 cm in diameter.
Authors: Ercan Malkoc; Daniel Ramirez; Onder Kara; Matthew J Maurice; Ryan J Nelson; Peter A Caputo; Jihad H Kaouk Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Matvey Tsivian; Efrat Tsivian; Yury Stanevsky; Roman Bass; A Ami Sidi; Alexander Tsivian Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2017 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.541
Authors: Oscar D Martín; Heilen Bravo; Marcos Arias; Diego Dallos; Yesica Quiroz; Luis G Medina; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Raul G Carlini Journal: Oncoscience Date: 2018-02-23