Comparative analysis of clinical features of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Introduction. Kidney cancer (mostly renal cell carcinoma) is one of the ten most commonly diagnosed malignant tumors among men and women. Due to the widespread use of computer tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, the proportion of early-stage kidney cancers has increased. Currently, treatment options for stage 1 kidney cancer are radical nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy, and active surveillance. Among organ-preserving intervention, three main techniques can be distinguished: open surgery, minimally invasive surgery and ablation methods. To date, robotic-assisted procedures have occupied their place among minimally invasive interventions.Aim. To carry out a comparative analysis of two methods of organ-preserving treatment of kidney tumors, namely robot-assisted and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.Materials and methods. A retrospective comparative analysis of two groups of patients with kidney tumors who underwent robotic-assisted or laparoscopic partial nephrectomy during the period from 2012 to 2019 was performed.Results. There were no differences between two groups in age, mean score on the RENAL nephrometry scale, preoperative creatinine levels, tumor size, and duration of warm ischemia. However, duration of surgery, the volume of blood loss, serum creatinine after surgery, the length of stay, the use of the technique of early unclamping of the renal artery, the use of technique "off-clamp" and the proportion of exophytic tumors with growth were significantly different between patients of two groups.Conclusion. We believe that the robotic system is intuitively convenient for performing partial nephrectomy, allowing the treatment of potentially more complex cases and expanding the indications for organ-preserving procedures

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

O. A Plekhanova

A.I. Burnazyan SRC FMBC, FMBA of Russia; AO «European Medical Center"

Email: oll_e@mail.ru
urologist; Ph.D. student at the Department of Urology and Andrology

P. Mono

AO Ilyin Clinic

Head of the Department of Urology

A. G Martov

A.I. Burnazyan SRC FMBC, FMBA of Russia; GBUZ “City clinical hospital named after D.D. Pletnev of the Health Department c. Moscow”

Ph.D., MD, professor, Head of the Department of Urology and Andrology

M. Yu Golubev

GBUZ “City clinical hospital named after D.D. Pletnev of the Health Department c. Moscow”

Email: dr.golubevmixail@mail.ru
physician at the Department of Urology

N. A Grigoriev

AO «European Medical Center"

Email: grigna69@gmail.com
Ph.D., MD, professor, Head of the Urologic Clinic

P. S Kyzlasov

Center of Urology and Andrology of A.I. Burnazyan SRC FMBC, FMBA of Russia

Email: dr.kyzlasov@mail.ru
Ph.D., MD, professor, Head of the Center of Urology and Andrology

D. A Abdullaev

GBUZ “City clinical hospital named after D.D. Pletnev of the Health Department c. Moscow”

Email: dr.david01@mail.ru
h.D., physician at the Department of Urology

References

  1. Abel E.J., Culp S.H., Meissner M.,. et. al. Identifying the risk of disease progression after surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int. 2010;106(9):1277-1283. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09337.
  2. Robson C.J., Churchill B.M., Anderson W. The Results of Radical Nephrectomy for Renal Cell Carcinoma. J. Urol. 2017;197(2S):S111-S113. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.10.095.
  3. Herr H.W. A history of partial nephrectomy for renal tumors. J. Urol. 26 2005;173(3):705-708. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000146270.65101.1d.
  4. Van Poppel H., Becker F., Cadeddu J.A., et al. Treatment of localised renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2011;60(4):662-672. Doi:10.1016/j. eururo.2011.06.040.
  5. MacLennan S., Imamura M., Lapitan M.C., et al. Systematic review of oncological outcomes following surgical management of localised renal cancer [published correction appears in Eur Urol. 2012;62(1):193. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.039.
  6. Vogel C., Ziegelmtiller B., Ljungberg B., et al. Imaging in Suspected Renal-Cell Carcinoma: Systematic Review. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019;17:e345.
  7. Atlas of Laparoscopic and Robotic Urologic Surgery 3rd Edition Jay Bishoff Louis Kavoussi eBook ISBN: 9780323394055 Elsevier Published Date: 1st December 2016 Page Count: 376.
  8. Kutikov A., Uzzo R.G. The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J. Urol. 2009;182(3):844-853. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.035.
  9. Ficarra V., Novara G., Secco S., et al. Preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) classification of renal tumours in patients who are candidates for nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol. 2009;56(5):786-793. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.07.040.
  10. Lifshitz D.A., Shikanov S., Jeldres C., et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: predictors of prolonged warm ischemia. J. Urol. 2009; 182(3):860-865. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.039.
  11. Porpiglia F., Volpe A., Billia M., et. al. Assessment of risk factors for complications of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;53(3):590-596. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.10.036.
  12. Tanagho Y.S., Bhayani S.B., Sandhu G.S., et. al. Renal functional and perioperative outcomes of off-clamp versus clamped robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: matched cohort study. Urology. 2012;80(4):838-843. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.04.074.
  13. Song J.B., Vemana G., Mobley J.M., Bhayani S.B. The second «time-out»: a surgical safety checklist for lengthy robotic surgeries. Patient Saf Surg. 2013;7(1):19. doi: 10.1186/1754-9493-7-19.
  14. Плеханова О.А., Моно Пьер, Островский Д.В., Мартов А.Г. Робот-ассистированная лапароскопическая резекция почки Урология. 2019;4:155-162
  15. Rogers C.G., Singh A., Blatt A.M., et. al. Robotic partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors: surgical technique. Eur Urol. 2008;53(3):514-521. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.09.047.
  16. Dulabon L.M., Kaouk J.H., Haber G.P., et al. Multi-institutional analysis of robotic partial nephrectomy for hilar versus nonhilar lesions in 446 consecutive cases. Eur Urol. 2011 ;59(3):325-330. Doi: 10.1016/j. eururo.2010.11.017.
  17. Spana G., Haber G.P., Dulabon L.M., et al. Complications after robotic partial nephrectomy at centers of excellence: multi-institutional analysis of 450 cases. J. Urol. 2011; 186(2):417-421. doi: 10.1016/j.juro. 2011.03.127.
  18. Guillotreau J., Haber G.P., Autorino R., et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic cryoablation for the small renal mass. Eur Urol. 2012;61(5):899-904. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.007.
  19. Benway B.M., Bhayani S.B., Rogers C.G., et al. Robot assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors: a multi-institutional analysis of perioperative outcomes. J. Urol. 2009;182(3):86872. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.037.
  20. Choi J.E., You J.H., Kim D.K., et. al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;67(5):891-901. Doi:10.1016/j. eururo.2014.12.028.
  21. Marszalek M., Meixl H., Polajnar M., et. al. Laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison of 200 patients. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5):1171-1178. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.01.042.
  22. Kondo T., Takagi T., Morita S., et al. Early unclamping might reduce the risk of renal artery pseudoaneurysm after robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Int J. Urol. 2015;22(12): 1096- 1102. Doi:10.1111/ iju.12902.
  23. Ngo T.C., Lee J.J., Gonzalgo M.L. Renal pseudoaneurysm: an overview. Nat Rev Urol. 2010;7(11):619-625. doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2010.163.
  24. Xia L., Pulido J.E., Chelluri R.R., et al. Hospital volume and outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2018; 121 (6):900-907. doi: 10.1111/bju.14099.
  25. Peyronnet B., Tondut L., Bernhard J.C., et al. Impact of hospital volume and surgeon volume on robot-assisted partial nephrectomy outcomes: a multicentre study. BJU Int. 2018; 121 (6):916-922. Doi:10.1111/ bju.14175.
  26. Arora S., Keeley J., PucherilD., et. al. What is the hospital volume threshold to optimize inpatient complication rate after partial nephrectomy? Urol Oncol. 2018;36(7):339.e17-339.e23. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc. 2018.04.009.
  27. Hanzly M., Frederick A., Creighton T., et al. Learning curves for robotassisted and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2015;29(3):297- 303. doi: 10.1089/end.2014.0303

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies