Advertisement

Journal of Robotic Surgery

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 157–161 | Cite as

Robotic versus traditional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison of outcomes with a transition of techniques

  • Nikhil VasdevEmail author
  • Markus Giessing
  • Hakan Zengini
  • James M. Adshead
  • Robert Rabenalt
Original Article

Abstract

We aimed to evaluate the effect of a transition from laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) to robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RALPN) on peri-operative and oncological patient outcomes. We present the results of the last 50 LPN (group 1) compared with our first 50 RALPN (group 2). The peri-operative data was evaluated using appropriate comparison tests. The parameters compared included operative times, warm ischaemia time (WIT), estimated blood loss (EBL), complications using the Clavien–Dindo (CD) grading system and oncological outcomes including positive surgical margin (PSM) rates. Patients in group 1 (n = 50) and group 2 (n = 50) had comparable pre-operative RENAL scores, ASA scores and tumour size characteristics. Ninety-four percent of the patients in group 1 underwent retroperitoneal LPN while 96 % of patients in group 2 underwent transperitoneal RALP. The mean total operative time in groups 1 and 2 was 163 versus 195 min, respectively (p = 0.003), and EBL was 294 versus 187 ml (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in WIT between groups 1 and 2 (24.7 and 21.8 min, respectively, p = 0.18). Post-operative histology was comparable in the two groups and the PSM rate was 8 versus 4 % (p = 0.58). The CD major complication rate was 16 % in group 1 versus 4 % in group 2 (p < 0.001). In our series, RALPN appears to have a longer initial total operative time than LPN; however, this reduces after the first 20 cases. RALP has a significant reduction in EBL and post-operative major complication rates, including immediate peri-operative complication rates such as the risk of acute haemorrhage or urinoma. Our data indicates that it is safe to change from LPN to RALPN with no compromise in patient safety or oncological outcomes.

Keywords

Robotic partial nephrectomy Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy Patient outcomes 

Notes

Conflict of interest

Nikhil Vasdev, Markus Giessing, Hakan Zengini, James M. Adshead and Robert Rabenalt declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Jewett MA, Mattar K, Basiuk J, Morash CG, Pautler SE, Siemens DR, Tanguay S, Rendon RA, Gleave ME, Drachenberg DE, Chow R, Chung H, Chin JL, Fleshner NE, Evans AJ, Gallie BL, Haider MA, Kachura JR, Kurban G, Fernandes K, Finelli A (2011) Active surveillance of small renal masses: progression patterns of early stage kidney cancer. Eur Urol 60(1):39–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Uzzo RG, Novick AC (2001) Nephron sparing surgery for renal tumors: indications, techniques and outcomes. J Urol 166:6–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mabjeesh NJ, Avidor Y, Matzkin H (2004) Emerging nephron sparing treatments for kidney tumors: a continuum of modalities from energy ablation to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Urol 171:553–560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fergany AF, Hafez KS, Novick AC (2000) Long-term results of nephron-sparing surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: 10-year follow-up. J Urol 163:442–445PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Lane BR, Blute ML, Babineau D, Colombo JR Jr, Frank I, Permpongkosol S, Weight CJ, Kaouk JH, Kattan MW, Novick AC (2007) Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors. J Urol 178(1):41–6Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arceo-Olaiz R, de la Morena JM, Hernandez V, Llorente C (2013) The role of ischemia in the deterioration of renal function after partial nephrectomy. Arch Esp Urol 66(4):350–358PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Borghesi M, Schiavina R, Gan M, Novara G, Mottrie A, Ficarra V (2013) Expanding utilization of robotic partial nephrectomy for clinical T1b and complex T1a renal masses. World J Urol 31(3):499–504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang AJ, Bhayani SB (2009) Robotic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: single-surgeon analysis of >100 consecutive procedures. Urology 73:306–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    MacLennan S, Imamura M, Lapitan MC, Omar MI, Lam TB, Hilvano-Cabungcal AM, Royle P, Stewart F, MacLennan G, MacLennan SJ, Dahm P, 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 perioperative and quality-of-life outcomes following surgical management of localised renal cancer. Eur Urol 62(6):1097–1117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ng CS, Gill IS, Ramani AP, Steinberg AP, Spaliviero M, Abreu SC, Kaouk JH, Desai MM (2005) Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: patient selection and perioperative outcomes. J Urol 174(3):846–849PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marszalek M, Chromecki T, Al-Ali BM, Meixl H, Madersbacher S, Jeschke K, Pummer K, Zigeuner R (2011) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison of the transperitoneal versus the retroperitoneal approach. Urology 77(1):109–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alemozaffar M, Chang SL, Kacker R, Sun M, DeWolf WC, Wagner AA (2013) Comparing costs of robotic, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy. J Endourol 27(5):560–565PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tse A, Knaus R, Tse E (2009) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: the University of Saskatchewan (Regina division) experience. Can Urol Assoc J 3:111–118PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haber GP, White WM, Crouzet S et al (2010) Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: single-surgeon matched cohort study of 150 patients. Urology 76:754–758PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gill IS, Abreu SC, Desai MM et al (2003) Laparoscopic ice slush renal hypothermia for partial nephrectomy: the initial experience. J Urol 170: 52–56Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yohannes P, Rotariu P, Pinto P et al (2002) Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology 60:39–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Papalia R, Simone G, Ferriero M, Guaglianone S, Costantini M, Giannarelli D, Maini CL, Forastiere E, Gallucci M (2012) Laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy without renal ischaemia for tumours larger than 4 cm: perioperative and functional outcomes. World J Urol 30(5):671–676PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikhil Vasdev
    • 1
    Email author
  • Markus Giessing
    • 2
  • Hakan Zengini
    • 2
  • James M. Adshead
    • 1
  • Robert Rabenalt
    • 2
  1. 1.Hertdfordshire and South Bedfordshire Robotic Urological Cancer Centre, Department of UrologyLister HospitalStevenageUK
  2. 2.Department of UrologyHeinrich-Heine UniversityDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations