Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 33, Issue 12, pp 2039–2044 | Cite as

Evolution from laparoscopic to robotic nephron sparing surgery: a high-volume laparoscopic center experience on achieving ‘trifecta’ outcomes

  • Arie Carneiro
  • Arjun Sivaraman
  • Rafael Sanchez-SalasEmail author
  • Ettore Di Trapani
  • Eric Barret
  • Francois Rozet
  • Marc Galiano
  • Facundo Uriburu Pizzaro
  • Steeve Doizi
  • Nathalie Cathala
  • Annick Mombet
  • Dominique Prapotnich
  • Xavier Cathelineau
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the transition from laparoscopic (LPN) to robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) in our institution using ‘trifecta’ outcomes as surrogate marker of efficacy.

Patients and methods

We identified 347 patients (LPN = 303, RPN = 44) in our prospectively maintained PN database between 2000 and 2014. The patients were chronologically divided into G1—first 151 LPN cases, G2—subsequent 152 LPN cases and G3—all RPN patients. Trifecta outcomes were defined as warm ischemia time (WIT) ≤25 min, no positive surgical margin (PSM) and complications ≤Clavien 2. Multivariable logistic model was used to analyze the predictors of the trifecta outcomes.

Results

The tumor complexity significantly increased from G1 to G3. We achieved lower WIT and less high-grade complication (Clavien ≥ 3) from G1 to G2, and the trend continued even with transition to RPN. PSM was consistently low throughout the transition. Renal functional outcomes always showed a significant positive trend, and with RPN, we achieved improved recovery of renal function (44 vs 57 vs 82 %, p < 0.05). The overall 'trifecta' rates increased significantly from G1 to G2 and reached 81.8 % in RPN (48 vs 75.6 vs 81 %, p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis has shown that the use of robot has significant effect on achieving overall trifecta. The limitations of the study are being retrospective and non-randomized, and the trifecta definitions were not externally validated.

Conclusions

Our transition to RPN was essentially a continuation of our previous LPN experience as we continue to achieve higher ‘trifecta’ rates inspite of increasing tumor complexity

Keywords

Kidney neoplasm Nephron sparing surgery Partial nephrectomy Trifecta Robotic surgery 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical standard

The Ethics Committee of the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris approved the study, and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki were respected.

References

  1. 1.
    Huang WC, Levey AS, Serio AM, Snyder M, Vickers AJ, Raj GV et al (2006) Chronic kidney disease after nephrectomy in patients with renal cortical tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 7(9):735–740 (PubMed PMID: 16945768. Pubmed Central PMCID: 2239298)PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Go AS, Chertow GM, Fan D, McCulloch CE, Hsu CY (2004) Chronic kidney disease and the risks of death, cardiovascular events, and hospitalization. N Engl J Med 351(13):1296–1305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thompson RH, Boorjian SA, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, Kwon ED, Cheville JC et al (2008) Radical nephrectomy for pT1a renal masses may be associated with decreased overall survival compared with partial nephrectomy. J Urol 179(2):468–471 (discussion 72–73. PubMed PMID: 18076931)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Campbell SC, Novick AC, Belldegrun A, Blute ML, Chow GK, Derweesh IH et al (2009) Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass. J Urol 182(4):1271–1279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Lane BR, Blute ML, Babineau D, Colombo JR Jr et al (2007) Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors. J Urol 178(1):41–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nguyen MM, Gill IS (2008) Halving ischemia time during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Urol 179(2):627–632 (discussion 32. PubMed PMID: 18082215)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hollenbeck BK, Taub DA, Miller DC, Dunn RL, Wei JT (2006) National utilization trends of partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a case of underutilization? Urology 67(2):254–259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Benway BM, Bhayani SB (2011) Surgical outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. BJU Int 108(6 Pt 2):955–961CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Spana G, Haber GP, Dulabon LM, Petros F, Rogers CG, Bhayani SB et al (2011) Complications after robotic partial nephrectomy at centers of excellence: multi-institutional analysis of 450 cases. J Urol 186(2):417–421CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rogers CG, Metwalli A, Blatt AM, Bratslavsky G, Menon M, Linehan WM et al (2008) Robotic partial nephrectomy for renal hilar tumors: a multi-institutional analysis. J Urol 180(6):2353–2356 (discussion 6. PubMed PMID: 18930263. Pubmed Central PMCID: 2648867)PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ellison JS, Montgomery JS, Wolf JS Jr, Hafez KS, Miller DC, Weizer AZ (2012) A matched comparison of perioperative outcomes of a single laparoscopic surgeon versus a multisurgeon robot-assisted cohort for partial nephrectomy. J Urol 188(1):45–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rogers CG, Singh A, Blatt AM, Linehan WM, Pinto PA (2008) Robotic partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors: surgical technique. Eur Urol 53(3):514–521 (PubMed PMID: 17961910. Pubmed Central PMCID: 2644902)PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Springer C, Hoda MR, Fajkovic H, Pini G, Mohammed N, Fornara P et al (2013) Laparoscopic vs open partial nephrectomy for T1 renal tumours: evaluation of long-term oncological and functional outcomes in 340 patients. BJU Int 111(2):281–288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thompson RH, Lane BR, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, Fergany A, Frank I et al (2010) Every minute counts when the renal hilum is clamped during partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 58(3):340–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhang X, Shen Z, Zhong S, Zhu Z, Wang X, Xu T (2013) Comparison of peri-operative outcomes of robot-assisted vs laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a meta-analysis. BJU Int 112(8):1133–1142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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(2):205–213 (PubMed PMID: 15273542. Pubmed Central PMCID: 1360123)PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Diaz M, Peabody JO, Kapoor V, Sammon J, Rogers CG, Stricker H et al (2014) Oncologic outcomes at 10 years following robotic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.025
  18. 18.
    Novara G, Catto JW, Wilson T, Annerstedt M, Chan K, Murphy DG et al (2015) Systematic review and cumulative analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Eur Urol 67(3):376–401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim JH, Park YH, Kim YJ, Kang SH, Byun SS, Kwak C et al (2015) Perioperative and long-term renal functional outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a multicenter matched-pair comparison. World J Urol. doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1488-5
  20. 20.
    Cirocchi R, Partelli S, Trastulli S, Coratti A, Parisi A, Falconi M (2013) A systematic review on robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Oncol 22(4):238–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hung AJ, Cai J, Simmons MN, Gill IS (2013) “Trifecta” in partial nephrectomy. J Urol 189(1):36–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zargar H, Allaf M, Bhayani S, Stifelman M, Rogers C, Ball M et al (2014) Trifecta and optimal peri-operative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in surgical treatment of small renal masses: a multi-institutional study. BJU Int. doi: 10.1111/bju.12933
  23. 23.
    Veltri A, Garetto I, Tosetti I, Busso M, Volpe A, Pacchioni D et al (2011) Diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of imaging-guided needle biopsy of renal masses. Retrospective analysis on 150 cases. Eur Radiol 21(2):393–401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jewett MA, Mattar K, Basiuk J, Morash CG, Pautler SE, Siemens DR et al (2011) Active surveillance of small renal masses: progression patterns of early stage kidney cancer. Eur Urol 60(1):39–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kutikov A, Smaldone MC, Egleston BL, Manley BJ, Canter DJ, Simhan J et al (2011) Anatomic features of enhancing renal masses predict malignant and high-grade pathology: a preoperative nomogram using the RENAL Nephrometry score. Eur Urol 60(2):241–248 (PubMed PMID: 21458155. Pubmed Central PMCID: 3124570)PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arie Carneiro
    • 1
  • Arjun Sivaraman
    • 1
  • Rafael Sanchez-Salas
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ettore Di Trapani
    • 1
  • Eric Barret
    • 1
  • Francois Rozet
    • 1
  • Marc Galiano
    • 1
  • Facundo Uriburu Pizzaro
    • 1
  • Steeve Doizi
    • 1
  • Nathalie Cathala
    • 1
  • Annick Mombet
    • 1
  • Dominique Prapotnich
    • 1
  • Xavier Cathelineau
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyInstitute Mutualiste MontsourisParis Cedex 14France

Personalised recommendations