OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the transition from laparoscopic (LPN) to robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) in our institution using 'trifecta' outcomes as surrogate marker of efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 347 patients (LPN = 303, RPN = 44) in our prospectively maintained PN database between 2000 and 2014. The patients were chronologically divided into G1-first 151 LPN cases, G2-subsequent 152 LPN cases and G3-all RPN patients. Trifecta outcomes were defined as warm ischemia time (WIT) ≤25 min, no positive surgical margin (PSM) and complications ≤Clavien 2. Multivariable logistic model was used to analyze the predictors of the trifecta outcomes. RESULTS: The tumor complexity significantly increased from G1 to G3. We achieved lower WIT and less high-grade complication (Clavien ≥ 3) from G1 to G2, and the trend continued even with transition to RPN. PSM was consistently low throughout the transition. Renal functional outcomes always showed a significant positive trend, and with RPN, we achieved improved recovery of renal function (44 vs 57 vs 82 %, p < 0.05). The overall 'trifecta' rates increased significantly from G1 to G2 and reached 81.8 % in RPN (48 vs 75.6 vs 81 %, p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis has shown that the use of robot has significant effect on achieving overall trifecta. The limitations of the study are being retrospective and non-randomized, and the trifecta definitions were not externally validated. CONCLUSIONS: Our transition to RPN was essentially a continuation of our previous LPN experience as we continue to achieve higher 'trifecta' rates inspite of increasing tumor complexity.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the transition from laparoscopic (LPN) to robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) in our institution using 'trifecta' outcomes as surrogate marker of efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 347 patients (LPN = 303, RPN = 44) in our prospectively maintained PN database between 2000 and 2014. The patients were chronologically divided into G1-first 151 LPN cases, G2-subsequent 152 LPN cases and G3-all RPNpatients. Trifecta outcomes were defined as warm ischemia time (WIT) ≤25 min, no positive surgical margin (PSM) and complications ≤Clavien 2. Multivariable logistic model was used to analyze the predictors of the trifecta outcomes. RESULTS: The tumor complexity significantly increased from G1 to G3. We achieved lower WIT and less high-grade complication (Clavien ≥ 3) from G1 to G2, and the trend continued even with transition to RPN. PSM was consistently low throughout the transition. Renal functional outcomes always showed a significant positive trend, and with RPN, we achieved improved recovery of renal function (44 vs 57 vs 82 %, p < 0.05). The overall 'trifecta' rates increased significantly from G1 to G2 and reached 81.8 % in RPN (48 vs 75.6 vs 81 %, p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis has shown that the use of robot has significant effect on achieving overall trifecta. The limitations of the study are being retrospective and non-randomized, and the trifecta definitions were not externally validated. CONCLUSIONS: Our transition to RPN was essentially a continuation of our previous LPN experience as we continue to achieve higher 'trifecta' rates inspite of increasing tumor complexity.
Authors: Jeong Ho Kim; Yong Hyun Park; Yong June Kim; Seok Ho Kang; Seok Soo Byun; Cheol Kwak; Sung Hoo Hong Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-01-14 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Alexander Kutikov; Marc C Smaldone; Brian L Egleston; Brandon J Manley; Daniel J Canter; Jay Simhan; Stephen A Boorjian; Rosalia Viterbo; David Y T Chen; Richard E Greenberg; Robert G Uzzo Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 20.096
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: 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: R Houston Thompson; Stephen A Boorjian; Christine M Lohse; Bradley C Leibovich; Eugene D Kwon; John C Cheville; Michael L Blute Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Homayoun Zargar; Mohamad E Allaf; Sam Bhayani; Michael Stifelman; Craig Rogers; Mark W Ball; Jeffrey Larson; Susan Marshall; Ramesh Kumar; Jihad H Kaouk Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-05-05 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Fernando P Secin; Octavio A Castillo; José J Rozanec; Marcelo Featherston; Pablo Holst; José Cocisfran Alves Milfont; Patricio García Marchiñena; Alberto Jurado Navarro; Anamaría Autrán; Agustín R Rovegno; Oscar Rodríguez Faba; Joan Palou; Victor Teixeira Dubeux; Luciano Nuñez Bragayrac; Rene Sotelo; Stenio Zequi; Gustavo Cardoso Guimarães; Mario Álvarez-Maestro; Luis Martínez-Piñeiro; Gustavo Villoldo; Alberto Villaronga; Diego Abreu Clavijo; Ricardo Decia; Rodrigo Frota; Ivar Vidal-Mora; Diana Finkelstein; Juan I Monzó Gardiner; Oscar Schatloff; Andres Hernández-Porrás; Félix Santaella-Torres; Emilio T Quesada; Rodolfo Sánchez-Salas; Hugo Dávila; Humberto Villavicencio Mavric Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-04-30 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Dae Keun Kim; Lawrence H C Kim; Ali Abdel Raheem; Tae Young Shin; Ibrahim Alabdulaali; Young Eun Yoon; Woong Kyu Han; Koon Ho Rha Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-17 Impact factor: 3.240