BACKGROUND: We compared renal functional outcomes of robotic (RPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), a definite indication for nephron-sparing surgery. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective analysis of OPN and RPN in patients with baseline ≥ CKD Stage III [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2] was performed. Primary outcome was change in eGFR (ΔeGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2) between preoperative and last follow-up with respect to RENAL nephrometry score group [simple (4-6), intermediate (7-9), complex (10-12)]. Secondary outcomes included eGFR decline > 50%. RESULTS: 728 patients (426 OPN, 302 RPN, mean follow-up 33.3 months) were analyzed. Similar RENAL score distribution (p = 0.148) was noted between groups. RPN had lower median estimated blood loss (p < 0.001), and hospital stay (3 vs. 5 days, p < 0.001). Median ischemia time (OPN 23.7 vs. RPN 21.5 min, p = 0.089), positive margin (p = 0.256), transfusion (p = 0.166), and 30-day complications (p = 0.208) were similar. For OPN vs. RPN, mean ΔeGFR demonstrated no significant difference for simple (0.5 vs. 0.3, p = 0.328), intermediate (2.1 vs. 2.1, p = 0.384), and complex (4.9 vs. 6.1, p = 0.108). Cox regression analysis demonstrated that decreasing preoperative eGFR (OR 1.10, p = 0.001) and complex RENAL score (OR 5.61, p = 0.03) were independent predictors for eGFR decline > 50%. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated 5-year freedom from eGFR decline > 50% of 88.6% for OPN and 88.3% for RPN (p = 0.724). CONCLUSIONS: RPN and OPN demonstrated similar renal functional outcomes when stratified by tumor complexity group. Increasing tumor age and tumor complexity were primary drivers associated with functional decline. RPN provides similar renal functional outcomes to OPN in appropriately selected patients.
BACKGROUND: We compared renal functional outcomes of robotic (RPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), a definite indication for nephron-sparing surgery. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective analysis of OPN and RPN in patients with baseline ≥ CKD Stage III [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2] was performed. Primary outcome was change in eGFR (ΔeGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2) between preoperative and last follow-up with respect to RENAL nephrometry score group [simple (4-6), intermediate (7-9), complex (10-12)]. Secondary outcomes included eGFR decline > 50%. RESULTS: 728 patients (426 OPN, 302 RPN, mean follow-up 33.3 months) were analyzed. Similar RENAL score distribution (p = 0.148) was noted between groups. RPN had lower median estimated blood loss (p < 0.001), and hospital stay (3 vs. 5 days, p < 0.001). Median ischemia time (OPN 23.7 vs. RPN 21.5 min, p = 0.089), positive margin (p = 0.256), transfusion (p = 0.166), and 30-day complications (p = 0.208) were similar. For OPN vs. RPN, mean ΔeGFR demonstrated no significant difference for simple (0.5 vs. 0.3, p = 0.328), intermediate (2.1 vs. 2.1, p = 0.384), and complex (4.9 vs. 6.1, p = 0.108). Cox regression analysis demonstrated that decreasing preoperative eGFR (OR 1.10, p = 0.001) and complex RENAL score (OR 5.61, p = 0.03) were independent predictors for eGFR decline > 50%. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated 5-year freedom from eGFR decline > 50% of 88.6% for OPN and 88.3% for RPN (p = 0.724). CONCLUSIONS:RPN and OPN demonstrated similar renal functional outcomes when stratified by tumor complexity group. Increasing tumor age and tumor complexity were primary drivers associated with functional decline. RPN provides similar renal functional outcomes to OPN in appropriately selected patients.
Authors: Daniel Canter; Alexander Kutikov; Mohit Sirohi; Ryan Street; Rosalia Viterbo; David Y T Chen; Richard E Greenberg; Robert G Uzzo Journal: Urology Date: 2011-02-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ramesh K Kumar; Jesse D Sammon; Bartosz F Kaczmarek; Ali Khalifeh; Michael A Gorin; Ganesh Sivarajan; Youssef S Tanagho; Sam B Bhayani; Michael D Stifelman; Mohamad E Allaf; Jihad H Kaouk; Craig G Rogers Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-12-14 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Borje Ljungberg; Karim Bensalah; Steven Canfield; Saeed Dabestani; Fabian Hofmann; Milan Hora; Markus A Kuczyk; Thomas Lam; Lorenzo Marconi; Axel S Merseburger; Peter Mulders; Thomas Powles; Michael Staehler; Alessandro Volpe; Axel Bex Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Benjamin J Scoll; Robert G Uzzo; David Y T Chen; Stephen A Boorjian; Alexander Kutikov; Brandon J Manley; Rosalia Viterbo Journal: Urology Date: 2010-01-18 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Shahab P Hillyer; Sam B Bhayani; Mohamad E Allaf; Craig G Rogers; Michael D Stifelman; Youssef Tanagho; Jeffrey K Mullins; Yichun Chiu; Bartosz F Kaczmarek; Jihad H Kaouk Journal: Urology Date: 2012-11-13 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Sohrab Arora; Ronney Abaza; James M Adshead; Rajesh K Ahlawat; Benjamin J Challacombe; Prokar Dasgupta; Giorgio Gandaglia; Daniel A Moon; Thyavihally B Yuvaraja; Umberto Capitanio; Alessandro Larcher; Francesco Porpiglia; James R Porter; Alexander Mottrie; Mahendra Bhandari; Craig Rogers Journal: BJU Int Date: 2017-08-16 Impact factor: 5.588