OBJECTIVES: To assess the perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy without renorrhaphy for cT1b renal tumors compared with cT1a. METHODS: From February 2015 to May 2018, 100 robot-assisted partial nephrectomy patients who underwent robot-assisted partial nephrectomy without renorrhaphy for renal tumors were included. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records, and compared the perioperative outcomes of 66 and 34 patients for cT1a and cT1b tumors, respectively. Inner suture was carried out in the opened collecting system or renal sinus, whereas parenchymal renorrhaphy was not. For hemostasis, the soft-coagulation system was used, and absorbable hemostats were placed on the resection bed. RESULTS: The median tumor size and RENAL nephrometry score were significantly different between the two groups (cT1a vs cT1b: 23.5 vs 45 mm, P < 0.001, 6 vs 8, P < 0.001). The median operating time and warm ischemic time were significantly longer in the cT1b group than in the cT1a group (154 vs 184 min, P < 0.001; 14 vs 21 min, P < 0.001). The median blood loss was not significantly different (2.5 vs 50 mL, P = 0.109). The positive surgical margin rate was 4.5% versus 11.7% (P = 0.22). Postoperative complications classified as Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher were port-site herniation (one patient), acute cholecystitis (one patient) and pseudoaneurysm (one patient) in the cT1b group. Urinary leakage was not observed in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy without renorrhaphy using the soft-coagulation system and absorbable hemostats appears to be feasible for renal or cT1b tumors. However, longer warm ischemic time and a high rate of complications can be expected compared with cT1a tumors.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy without renorrhaphy for cT1brenal tumors compared with cT1a. METHODS: From February 2015 to May 2018, 100 robot-assisted partial nephrectomy patients who underwent robot-assisted partial nephrectomy without renorrhaphy for renal tumors were included. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records, and compared the perioperative outcomes of 66 and 34 patients for cT1a and cT1btumors, respectively. Inner suture was carried out in the opened collecting system or renal sinus, whereas parenchymal renorrhaphy was not. For hemostasis, the soft-coagulation system was used, and absorbable hemostats were placed on the resection bed. RESULTS: The median tumor size and RENAL nephrometry score were significantly different between the two groups (cT1a vs cT1b: 23.5 vs 45 mm, P < 0.001, 6 vs 8, P < 0.001). The median operating time and warm ischemic time were significantly longer in the cT1b group than in the cT1a group (154 vs 184 min, P < 0.001; 14 vs 21 min, P < 0.001). The median blood loss was not significantly different (2.5 vs 50 mL, P = 0.109). The positive surgical margin rate was 4.5% versus 11.7% (P = 0.22). Postoperative complications classified as Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher were port-site herniation (one patient), acute cholecystitis (one patient) and pseudoaneurysm (one patient) in the cT1b group. Urinary leakage was not observed in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy without renorrhaphy using the soft-coagulation system and absorbable hemostats appears to be feasible for renal or cT1btumors. However, longer warm ischemic time and a high rate of complications can be expected compared with cT1a tumors.