Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic partial nephrectomy shortens warm ischemia time, reducing suturing time kinetics even for an experienced laparoscopic surgeon: a comparative analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy (LPN and RPN) are strongly related to influence of tumor complexity and learning curve. We analyzed a consecutive experience between RPN and LPN to discern if warm ischemia time (WIT) is in fact improved while accounting for these two confounding variables and if so by which particular aspect of WIT.

Methods

This is a retrospective analysis of consecutive procedures performed by a single surgeon between 2002–2008 (LPN) and 2008–2012 (RPN). Specifically, individual steps, including tumor excision, suturing of intrarenal defect, and parenchyma, were recorded at the time of surgery. Multivariate and univariate analyzes were used to evaluate influence of learning curve, tumor complexity, and time kinetics of individual steps during WIT, to determine their influence in WIT. Additionally, we considered the effect of RPN on the learning curve.

Results

A total of 146 LPNs and 137 RPNs were included. Considering renal function, WIT, suturing time, renorrhaphy time were found statistically significant differences in favor of RPN (p < 0.05). In the univariate analysis, surgical procedure, learning curve, clinical tumor size, and RENAL nephrometry score were statistically significant predictors for WIT (p < 0.05). RPN decreased the WIT on average by approximately 7 min compared to LPN even when adjusting for learning curve, tumor complexity, and both together (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

We found RPN was associated with a shorter WIT when controlling for influence of the learning curve and tumor complexity. The time required for tumor excision was not shortened but the time required for suturing steps was significantly shortened.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Campbell SC, Novick AC, Belldegrun A, Blute ML, Chow GK, Derweesh IH, Faraday MM, Kaouk JH, Leveillee RJ, Matin SF, Russo P, Uzzo RG, Practice Guidelines Committee of the American Urological A (2009) Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass. J Urol 182(4):1271–1279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aboumarzouk OM, Stein RJ, Eyraud R, Haber GP, Chlosta PL, Somani BK, Kaouk JH (2012) Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 62(6):1023–1033. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.06.038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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):45–50. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.2570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pierorazio PM, Patel HD, Feng T, Yohannan J, Hyams ES, Allaf ME (2011) Robotic-assisted versus traditional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison of outcomes and evaluation of learning curve. Urology 78(4):813–819. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2011.04.065

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Masson-Lecomte A, Bensalah K, Seringe E, Vaessen C, de la Taille A, Doumerc N, Rischmann P, Bruyere F, Soustelle L, Droupy S, Roupret M (2013) A prospective comparison of surgical and pathological outcomes obtained after robot-assisted or pure laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in moderate to complex renal tumours: results from a French multicentre collaborative study. BJU Int 111(2):256–263. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11528.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mirheydar HS, Parsons JK (2012) Diffusion of robotics into clinical practice in the United States: process, patient safety, learning curves, and the public health. World J Urol. doi:10.1007/s00345-012-1015-x

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gill IS, Desai MM, Kaouk JH, Meraney AM, Murphy DP, Sung GT, Novick AC (2002) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumor: duplicating open surgical techniques. J Urol 167(2 Pt 1):469–467; discussion 475–466

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kutikov A, Uzzo RG (2009) The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J Urol 182(3):844–853. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Benway BM, Bhayani SB, Rogers CG, Dulabon LM, Patel MN, Lipkin M, Wang AJ, Stifelman MD (2009) Robot assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors: a multi-institutional analysis of perioperative outcomes. J Urol 182(3):866–872. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Deane LA, Lee HJ, Box GN, Melamud O, Yee DS, Abraham JB, Finley DS, Borin JF, McDougall EM, Clayman RV, Ornstein DK (2008) Robotic versus standard laparoscopic partial/wedge nephrectomy: a comparison of intraoperative and perioperative results from a single institution. J Endourol Endourol Soc 22(5):947–952. doi:10.1089/end.2007.0376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gettman MT, Blute ML, Chow GK, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R (2004) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: technique and initial clinical experience with DaVinci robotic system. Urology 64(5):914–918. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2004.06.049

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Haber GP, White WM, Crouzet S, White MA, Forest S, Autorino R, Kaouk JH (2010) Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: single-surgeon matched cohort study of 150 patients. Urology 76(3):754–758. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2010.03.058

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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(2):306–310. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2008.09.049

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Scoll BJ, Uzzo RG, Chen DY, Boorjian SA, Kutikov A, Manley BJ, Viterbo R (2010) Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a large single-institutional experience. Urology 75(6):1328–1334

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mottrie A, De Naeyer G, Schatteman P, Carpentier P, Sangalli M, Ficarra V (2010) Impact of the learning curve on perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy for parenchymal renal tumours. Eur Urol 58(1):127–132. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2010.03.045

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cha EK, Lee DJ, Del Pizzo JJ (2011) Current status of robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). BJU Int 108(6 Pt 2):935–941. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10556.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lavery HJ, Small AC, Samadi DB, Palese MA (2011) Transition from laparoscopic to robotic partial nephrectomy: the learning curve for an experienced laparoscopic surgeon. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg Soc Laparoendosc Surg 15(3):291–297. doi:10.4293/108680811X13071180407357

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Sunita Patterson reviewed the manuscript for editorial and grammatical corrections. This research was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health through MD Anderson’s Cancer Center Support Grant, CA016672.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

    Graciela M. Nogueras-González

  2. Department of Urology, Unit 1373, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Eliney F. Faria, Peter A. Caputo, Christopher G. Wood, Jose A. Karam & Surena F. Matin

Authors
  1. Eliney F. Faria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter A. Caputo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher G. Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jose A. Karam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Graciela M. Nogueras-González
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Surena F. Matin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Surena F. Matin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Faria, E.F., Caputo, P.A., Wood, C.G. et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy shortens warm ischemia time, reducing suturing time kinetics even for an experienced laparoscopic surgeon: a comparative analysis. World J Urol 32, 265–271 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1115-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1115-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation