Adil Mellouki1, Imad Bentellis1, Arnoult Morrone1, Nicolas Doumerc2, Jean-Baptiste Beauval2, Morgane Roupret3, François-Xavier Nouhaud4, Cedric Lebacle3, Jean-Alexandre Long5, Daniel Chevallier1, Brannwel Tibi1, Aysha Shaikh1, L Imbert de la Phalecque1, Pierre Pillot6, Xavier Tillou7, Jean-Christophe Bernhard8, Matthieu Durand1, Youness Ahallal9. 1. Department of Urology, Andrology and Renal Transplant, Pasteur II University Hospital, 30 Avenue Romaine, 06001, Nice, France. 2. Department of Urology, University Hospital of Toulouse, Toulouse, France. 3. APHP Department of Urology, Bicetre University Hospital, Paris Saclay University, Le Kremlin Bicetre, France. 4. Department of Urology, University Hospital of Rouen, Rouen, France. 5. Department of Urology, University Hospital of Grenoble, Grenoble, France. 6. Department of Urology, University Hospital of Poitiers, Poitiers, France. 7. Department of Urology, University Hospital of Caen, Caen, France. 8. Department of Urology, University Hospital of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France. 9. Department of Urology, Andrology and Renal Transplant, Pasteur II University Hospital, 30 Avenue Romaine, 06001, Nice, France. ahallal.y@chu-nice.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare off-clamp vs on-clamp robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in terms of oncological outcomes, and to assess the impact of surgical experience (SE). METHODS: We extracted data of a contemporary cohort of 1359 patients from the prospectively maintained database of the French national network of research on kidney cancer (UROCCR). The primary objective was to assess the positive surgical margin (PSM) rate. We also evaluated the oncological outcomes regardless of the surgical experience (SE) by dividing patients into three groups of SE as a secondary endpoints. SE was defined by the caseload of RPN per surgeon per year. For the continuous variables, we used Mann-Whitney and Student tests. We assessed survival analysis according to hilar control approach by Kaplan-Meier curves with log rank tests. A logistic regression multivariate analysis was used to evaluate the independent factors of PSM. RESULTS: Outcomes of 224 off-clamp RPN for RCC were compared to 1135 on-clamp RPN. PSM rate was not statistically different, with 5.6% in the off-clamp group, and 11% in the on-clamp group (p = 0.1). When assessing survival analysis for overall survival (OS), local recurrence-free survival (LR), and metastasis-free survival (MFS) according to hilar clamping approach, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with p value log rank = 0.2, 0.8, 0.1, respectively. In multivariate analysis assessing SE, hilar control approach, hospital volume (HV), RENAL score, gender, Age, ECOG, EBL, BMI, and indication of NSS, age at surgery was associated with PSM (odds ratio [OR] 1.03 (95% CI 1.00-1.04), 0.02), whereas SE, HV, and type of hilar control approach were not predictive factors of PSM. CONCLUSION: Hilar control approach seems to have no impact on PSM of RPN for RCC. Our findings were consistent with randomized trials.
PURPOSE: To compare off-clamp vs on-clamp robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in terms of oncological outcomes, and to assess the impact of surgical experience (SE). METHODS: We extracted data of a contemporary cohort of 1359 patients from the prospectively maintained database of the French national network of research on kidney cancer (UROCCR). The primary objective was to assess the positive surgical margin (PSM) rate. We also evaluated the oncological outcomes regardless of the surgical experience (SE) by dividing patients into three groups of SE as a secondary endpoints. SE was defined by the caseload of RPN per surgeon per year. For the continuous variables, we used Mann-Whitney and Student tests. We assessed survival analysis according to hilar control approach by Kaplan-Meier curves with log rank tests. A logistic regression multivariate analysis was used to evaluate the independent factors of PSM. RESULTS: Outcomes of 224 off-clamp RPN for RCC were compared to 1135 on-clamp RPN. PSM rate was not statistically different, with 5.6% in the off-clamp group, and 11% in the on-clamp group (p = 0.1). When assessing survival analysis for overall survival (OS), local recurrence-free survival (LR), and metastasis-free survival (MFS) according to hilar clamping approach, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with p value log rank = 0.2, 0.8, 0.1, respectively. In multivariate analysis assessing SE, hilar control approach, hospital volume (HV), RENAL score, gender, Age, ECOG, EBL, BMI, and indication of NSS, age at surgery was associated with PSM (odds ratio [OR] 1.03 (95% CI 1.00-1.04), 0.02), whereas SE, HV, and type of hilar control approach were not predictive factors of PSM. CONCLUSION: Hilar control approach seems to have no impact on PSM of RPN for RCC. Our findings were consistent with randomized trials.
Authors: William C Huang; Andrew S Levey; Angel M Serio; Mark Snyder; Andrew J Vickers; Ganesh V Raj; Peter T Scardino; Paul Russo Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 41.316
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: Urology Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Steven C Campbell; Andrew C Novick; Arie Belldegrun; Michael L Blute; George K Chow; Ithaar H Derweesh; Martha M Faraday; Jihad H Kaouk; Raymond J Leveillee; Surena F Matin; Paul Russo; Robert G Uzzo Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-08-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Andrea Minervini; Riccardo Campi; Brian R Lane; Ottavio De Cobelli; Francesco Sanguedolce; Georgios Hatzichristodoulou; Alessandro Antonelli; Sabrina Noyes; Andrea Mari; Oscar Rodriguez-Faba; Frank X Keeley; Johan Langenhuijsen; Gennaro Musi; Tobias Klatte; Marco Roscigno; Bulent Akdogan; Maria Furlan; Nihat Karakoyunlu; Martin Marszalek; Umberto Capitanio; Alessandro Volpe; Sabine Brookman-May; Jürgen E Gschwend; Marc C Smaldone; Robert G Uzzo; Marco Carini; Alexander Kutikov Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-10-14 Impact factor: 7.450
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: B Guillonneau; H Bermúdez; S Gholami; H El Fettouh; R Gupta; J Adorno Rosa; H Baumert; X Cathelineau; G Fromont; G Vallancien Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Fabrizio Di Maida; Riccardo Campi; Brian R Lane; Ottavio De Cobelli; Francesco Sanguedolce; Georgios Hatzichristodoulou; Alessandro Antonelli; Antonio Andrea Grosso; Sabrina Noyes; Oscar Rodriguez-Faba; Frank X Keeley; Johan Langenhuijsen; Gennaro Musi; Tobias Klatte; Marco Roscigno; Bulent Akdogan; Maria Furlan; Claudio Simeone; Nihat Karakoyunlu; Martin Marszalek; Umberto Capitanio; Alessandro Volpe; Sabine Brookman-May; Jürgen E Gschwend; Marc C Smaldone; Robert G Uzzo; Alexander Kutikov; Andrea Minervini Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 4.241