Abstract
The aims of this study were to compare the perioperative outcomes of da Vinci Xi to Si during robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and to discuss the feasibility of our novel port placement scheme for the da Vinci Xi platform, to overcome the existing kinetic and technical difficulties we faced with the linear port placement in patients with a small body habitus. A retrospective data analysis of patients who underwent RPN using da Vinci Xi (n = 18) was carried out. The outcomes of the Xi group were compared with the Si group (n = 18) selected using a case-matched methodology. For da Vinci Xi, we applied the universal linear port placement in 12 patients and our modified port placement in the remaining 6 patients. The Xi group had a shorter mean docking time of 17.8 ± 2.6 min compared to the Si group of 20.5 ± 2.1 min (p = 0.002); otherwise, no significant difference was present with regard to the remaining perioperative variables (p > 0.05). The modified Xi port placement had a shorter mean console time of 70.8 ± 9.7 min compared to the universal linear port placement of 89.3 ± 17.2 min (p = 0.03). Moreover, it provided a broader field of vision with excellent robotic arms movement, minimizing collisions and allowing an easier and comfortable surgical assist. Da Vinci Xi appears to be feasible and safe during RPN with similar outcomes to Si. The novel Xi port placement makes surgery easier in patients with low BMI.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
MacLennan S, Imamura M, Lapitan MC, Omar MI, Lam TB, Hilvano-Cabungcal AM, Royle P, Stewart F, MacLennan G, MacLennan SJ, Canfield SE, McClinton S, Griffiths TR, Ljungberg B, N’Dow J, UCAN Systematic Review Reference Group, EAU Renal Cancer Guideline Panel (2012) Systematic review of oncological outcomes following surgical management of localized renal cancer. Eur Urol 61(5):972–993
Ljungberg B, Cowan NC, Hanbury DC, Hora M, Kuczyk MA, Merseburger AS, Patard JJ, Mulders PF, Sinescu IC, European Association Of Urology Guideline Group (2010) EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2010 update. Eur Urol 58(5):398–406
Choi JE, You JH, Kim DK, Rha KH, Lee SH (2015) Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67(5):891–901
Zhenjie Wu, Li Mingmin, Liu Bing, Cai C, Ye H, Lv C, Yang Q, Sheng J, Song S, Qu L, Xiao L, Sun Y, Wang L (2014) Robotic versus open partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 9(4):948–978
Wilson TG (2014) Advancement of technology and its impact on urologists: release of the da Vinci Xi, a new surgical robot. Eur Urol 66(4):793–794
Darwiche F, Swain S, Kallingal G, Punnen S, Manoharan M, Parekh DJ, Gonzalgo ML (2015) Operative technique and early experience for robotic-assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (RALNU) using da Vinci Xi. Springer Plus 4:298–303
Kallingal G, Swain S, Darwiche F, Punnen S, Manoharan M, Gonzalgo ML, Parekh DJ (2016) Robotic Partial Nephrectomy with the da Vinci Xi. Adv Urol 2016:9675095. doi:10.1155/2016/9675095 (Epub 2016 Feb9)
WHO expert consultation (2004) Appropriate body-mass index for Asian populations and its implications for policy and intervention strategies. Lancet 363:157–163
Goh VH, Tain CF, Tong TY, Mok HP, Wong MT (2004) Are BMI and other anthropometric measures appropriate as indices for obesity? A study in an Asian population. J Lipid Res 45(10):1892–1898
Patel MN, Aboumohamed A, Hemal Ashok (2015) Does transition from the da Vinci Si to Xi robotic platform impact single-docking technique for robot-assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy? BJU Int 116(6):990–994
Ficarra V, Novara G, Secco S, Macchi V, Porzionato A, De Caro R, Artibani W (2009) Preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) classification of renal tumours in patients who are candidates for nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol 56(5):786–793
Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, Greene T, Rogers N, Roth D (1999) A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. Modification of diet in renal disease study group. Ann Intern Med 130(6):461–470
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213
Khalifeh A, Autorino R, Hillyer SP, Laydner H, Eyraud R, Panumatrassamee K, Long JA, Kaouk JH (2013) Comparative outcomes and assessment of trifecta in 500 robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy cases: a single surgeon experience. J Urol 189(4):1236–1242
Lorenzo El, Jeong W, Oh CK, Chung BH, Choi YD, Rha KH (2011) Robotics applied in laparoscopic kidney surgery: the Yonsei University experience of 127 cases. Urology 77(1):114–118
Komninos C, Shin TY, Tuliao P, Kim DK, Han WK, Chung BH, Choi YD, Rha KH (2014) Robotic partial nephrectomy for completely endophytic renal tumors: complications and functional and oncologic outcomes during a 4-year median period of follow-up. Urology 84(6):1367–1373
Hung AJ, Cai J, Simmons MN, Gill IS (2013) ‘‘Trifecta’’ in partial nephrectomy. J Urol 189(1):36–42
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge Mr. Trenton Gee Hong Lum for his precious role in English grammar revision and correction of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
The study was done in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and national regulations. The study was approved by our institutional review board (IBR No.: 2014-0090-001).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Abdel Raheem, A., Sheikh, A., Kim, D.K. et al. Da Vinci Xi and Si platforms have equivalent perioperative outcomes during robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: preliminary experience. J Robotic Surg 11, 53–61 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0612-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0612-x