OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the clinical feasibility of an articulated laparoscopic needle driver to assist in the performance of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). Previous studies have demonstrated under-utilization of minimally invasive techniques for patients undergoing partial nephrectomy (PN). METHODS: Consecutive patients with renal masses amenable to PN underwent LPN with an articulating laparoscopic needle driver. A consecutive cohort of patients who previously underwent robot assisted laparoscopic PN (RALPN) was selected as a comparison cohort. Preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative variables were retrospectively collected. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients underwent PN with 10 patients assigned to each of the LPN and RALPN cohorts. Median R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores assigned to the LPN and RALPN cohorts were 7 and 6 respectively (P= .31). Median warm ischemia time for patients in the LPN and RALPN groups was 25.5 and 18.5 minutes respectively (P= .36). Median estimated blood loss for LPN and RALPN was 200 and 50 mL (P= .03). Median operative time for LPN and RALPN was 203 and 194 minutes respectively (P= .76). Median Length of stay after LPN and RALPN was similar (3.0 vs 2.5 nights, P= .26). Following LPN, 3 patients required blood transfusion as compared to 2 patients in the RALPN cohort (P= .61). CONCLUSION: Our initial results demonstrated the clinical safety and feasibility of a new surgical device for performing LPN. Patients who underwent LPN with a novel articulating needle driver demonstrated equivalent results to RALPN across several key outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the clinical feasibility of an articulated laparoscopic needle driver to assist in the performance of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). Previous studies have demonstrated under-utilization of minimally invasive techniques for patients undergoing partial nephrectomy (PN). METHODS: Consecutive patients with renal masses amenable to PN underwent LPN with an articulating laparoscopic needle driver. A consecutive cohort of patients who previously underwent robot assisted laparoscopic PN (RALPN) was selected as a comparison cohort. Preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative variables were retrospectively collected. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients underwent PN with 10 patients assigned to each of the LPN and RALPN cohorts. Median R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores assigned to the LPN and RALPN cohorts were 7 and 6 respectively (P= .31). Median warm ischemia time for patients in the LPN and RALPN groups was 25.5 and 18.5 minutes respectively (P= .36). Median estimated blood loss for LPN and RALPN was 200 and 50 mL (P= .03). Median operative time for LPN and RALPN was 203 and 194 minutes respectively (P= .76). Median Length of stay after LPN and RALPN was similar (3.0 vs 2.5 nights, P= .26). Following LPN, 3 patients required blood transfusion as compared to 2 patients in the RALPN cohort (P= .61). CONCLUSION: Our initial results demonstrated the clinical safety and feasibility of a new surgical device for performing LPN. Patients who underwent LPN with a novel articulating needle driver demonstrated equivalent results to RALPN across several key outcomes.