Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perioperative outcomes following robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in elderly patients

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

Abstract

Objective

To compare perioperative outcomes following robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) in patients with age ≥ 70 years to age < 70 years.

Methods

Using Vattikuti Collective quality initiative (VCQI) database for RAPN we compared perioperative outcomes following RAPN between the two age groups. Primary outcome of the study was to compare trifecta outcomes between the two groups. Propensity matching using nearest neighbourhood method was performed with trifecta as primary outcome for sex, body mass index (BMI), solitary kidney, tumor size and Renal nephrometery score (RNS).

Results

Group A (age ≥ 70 years) included 461 patients whereas group B included 1932 patients. Before matching the two groups were statistically different for RNS and solitary kidney rates. After propensity matching, the two groups were comparable for baselines characteristics such as BMI, tumor size, clinical symptoms, tumor side, face of tumor, solitary kidney and tumor complexity. Among the perioperative outcome parameters there was no difference between two groups for operative time, blood loss, intraoperative transfusion, intraoperative complications, need for radical nephrectomy, positive margins and trifecta rates. Warm ischemia time was significantly longer in the younger age group (18.1 min vs. 16.3 min, p = 0.003). Perioperative complications were significantly higher in the older age group (11.8% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.041). However, there was no difference between the two groups for major complications.

Conclusion

RAPN in well-selected elderly patients is associated with comparable trifecta outcomes with acceptable perioperative morbidity.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability statement

Corresponding author had full access to data and same can be provided on request to genuine authors.

References

  1. Ljungberg B, Albiges L, Bedke J, Bex A, Capitanio U, Giles RH, et al (2021) members of EAU guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma 2021. https://uroweb.org/guideline/renal-cell-carcinoma/. Accessed 27 Feb 2022

  2. Leppert JT, Mittakanti HR, Thomas IC, Lamberts RW, Sonn GA, Chung BI et al (2017) Contemporary use of partial nephrectomy: are older patients with impaired kidney function being left behind? Urology 100:65–71 (Epub 2016/09/17)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tan HJ, Daskivich TJ, Shirk JD, Filson CP, Litwin MS, Hu JC (2017) Health status and use of partial nephrectomy in older adults with early-stage kidney cancer. Urol Oncol 35(153):e7–e14 (Epub 2016/12/14)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Mir MC, Derweesh I, Porpiglia F, Zargar H, Mottrie A, Autorino R (2017) Partial nephrectomy versus radical nephrectomy for clinical T1b and T2 renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 71:606–617 (Epub 2016/09/12)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ljungberg B, Albiges L, Abu-Ghanem Y, Bensalah K, Dabestani S, Fernandez-Pello S et al (2019) European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma: the 2019 Update. Eur Urol 75:799–810 (Epub 2019/02/26)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Woldrich JM, Palazzi K, Stroup SP, Sur RL, Parsons JK, Chang D et al (2013) Trends in the surgical management of localized renal masses: thermal ablation, partial and radical nephrectomy in the USA, 1998–2008. BJU Int 111:1261–1268 (Epub 2013/03/09)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kim SP, Gross CP, Meropol N, Kutikov A, Smaldone MC, Shah ND et al (2017) National treatment trends among older patients with T1-localized renal cell carcinoma. Urol Oncol 35(113):e15–e21 (Epub 2016/11/15)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Antonelli A, Veccia A, Pavan N, Mir C, Breda A, Takagi T et al (2019) Outcomes of partial and radical nephrectomy in octogenarians—a multicenter international study (Resurge). Urology 129:139–145 (Epub 2019/03/28)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chung JS, Son NH, Lee SE, Hong SK, Lee SC, Kwak C et al (2015) Overall survival and renal function after partial and radical nephrectomy among older patients with localised renal cell carcinoma: a propensity-matched multicentre study. Eur J Cancer 51:489–497 (Epub 2015/01/13)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. An JY, Ball MW, Gorin MA, Hong JJ, Johnson MH, Pavlovich CP et al (2017) Partial vs radical nephrectomy for T1–T2 renal masses in the elderly: comparison of complications, renal function, and oncologic outcomes. Urology 100:151–157 (Epub 2016/11/28)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ristau BT, Handorf EA, Cahn DB, Kutikov A, Uzzo RG, Smaldone MC (2018) Partial nephrectomy is not associated with an overall survival advantage over radical nephrectomy in elderly patients with stage Ib-II renal masses: an analysis of the national cancer data base. Cancer 124:3839–3848 (Epub 2018/09/13)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Veccia A, Dell’oglio P, Antonelli A, Minervini A, Simone G, Challacombe B et al (2020) Robotic partial nephrectomy versus radical nephrectomy in elderly patients with large renal masses. Minerva Urol Nefrol 72:99–108 (Epub 2019/09/19)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sun M, Trinh QD, Bianchi M, Hansen J, Hanna N, Abdollah F et al (2012) A non-cancer-related survival benefit is associated with partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 61:725–731 (Epub 2011/12/17)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ficarra V, Bhayani S, Porter J, Buffi N, Lee R, Cestari A et al (2012) Predictors of warm ischemia time and perioperative complications in a multicenter, international series of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 61:395–402 (Epub 2011/11/15)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Van Poppel H, Da Pozzo L, Albrecht W, Matveev V, Bono A, Borkowski A et al (2011) A prospective, randomised EORTC intergroup phase 3 study comparing the oncologic outcome of elective nephron-sparing surgery and radical nephrectomy for low-stage renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 59:543–552 (Epub 2010/12/28)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Van Poppel H, Da Pozzo L, Albrecht W, Matveev V, Bono A, Borkowski A et al (2007) A prospective randomized EORTC intergroup phase 3 study comparing the complications of elective nephron-sparing surgery and radical nephrectomy for low-stage renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 51:1606–1615 (Epub 2006/12/05)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lesage K, Joniau S, Fransis K, Van Poppel H (2007) Comparison between open partial and radical nephrectomy for renal tumours: perioperative outcome and health-related quality of life. Eur Urol 51:614–620 (Epub 2006/11/14)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ingels A, Duc S, Bensalah K, Bigot P, Paparel P, Beauval JB et al (2021) Postoperative outcomes of elderly patients undergoing partial nephrectomy. Sci Rep 11:17201 (Epub 2021/08/27)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Bindayi A, Autorino R, Capitanio U, Pavan N, Mir MC, Antonelli A et al (2020) Trifecta outcomes of partial nephrectomy in patients over 75 years old: analysis of the REnal SURGery in elderly (RESURGE) Group. Eur Urol Focus 6:982–990 (Epub 2019/02/26)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Vartolomei MD, Matei DV, Renne G, Tringali VM, Crisan N, Musi G et al (2019) Long-term oncologic and functional outcomes after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in elderly patients. Minerva Urol Nefrol 71:31–37 (Epub 2018/09/20)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Arora S, Abaza R, Adshead JM, Ahlawat RK, Challacombe BJ, Dasgupta P et al (2018) “Trifecta” outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in solitary kidney: a Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative (VCQI) database analysis. BJU Int 121:119–123 (Epub 2017/07/28)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Arora S, Bronkema C, Porter JR, Mottrie A, Dasgupta P, Challacombe B et al (2020) Omission of cortical renorrhaphy during robotic partial nephrectomy: a vattikuti collective quality initiative database analysis. Urology 146:125–132 (Epub 2020/09/18)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Arora S, Heulitt G, Menon M, Jeong W, Ahlawat RK, Capitanio U et al (2018) Retroperitoneal vs transperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: comparison in a multi-institutional setting. Urology 120:131–137 (Epub 2018/07/28)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sharma G, Shah M, Ahluwalia P, Dasgupta P, Challacombe BJ, Bhandari M et al (2022) Comparison of perioperative outcomes following transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a propensity-matched analysis of VCQI database. World J Urol 40(9):2283–2291

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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 (Epub 2004/07/27)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Khalifeh A, Autorino R, Hillyer SP, Laydner H, Eyraud R, Panumatrassamee K et al (2013) Comparative outcomes and assessment of trifecta in 500 robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy cases: a single surgeon experience. J Urol 189:1236–1242 (Epub 2012/10/20)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lau WK, Blute ML, Weaver AL, Torres VE, Zincke H (2000) Matched comparison of radical nephrectomy vs nephron-sparing surgery in patients with unilateral renal cell carcinoma and a normal contralateral kidney. Mayo Clin Proc 75:1236–1242 (Epub 2000/12/29)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Corman JM, Penson DF, Hur K, Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson W et al (2000) Comparison of complications after radical and partial nephrectomy: results from the National Veterans Administration Surgical Quality Improvement Program. BJU Int 86:782–789 (Epub 2000/11/09)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Stephenson AJ, Hakimi AA, Snyder ME, Russo P (2004) Complications of radical and partial nephrectomy in a large contemporary cohort. J Urol 171:130–134 (Epub 2003/12/11)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lowrance WT, Yee DS, Savage C, Cronin AM, O’Brien MF, Donat SM et al (2010) Complications after radical and partial nephrectomy as a function of age. J Urol 183:1725–1730 (Epub 2010/03/20)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Simhan J, Smaldone MC, Tsai KJ, Li T, Reyes JM, Canter D et al (2012) Perioperative outcomes of robotic and open partial nephrectomy for moderately and highly complex renal lesions. J Urol 187:2000–2004 (Epub 2012/04/14)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Dulabon LM, Kaouk JH, Haber GP, Berkman DS, Rogers CG, Petros F et al (2011) Multi-institutional analysis of robotic partial nephrectomy for hilar versus nonhilar lesions in 446 consecutive cases. Eur Urol 59:325–330 (Epub 2010/12/15)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Scoll BJ, Uzzo RG, Chen DY, Boorjian SA, Kutikov A, Manley BJ et al (2010) Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a large single-institutional experience. Urology 75:1328–1334 (Epub 2010/01/19)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Patel MN, Krane LS, Bhandari A, Laungani RG, Shrivastava A, Siddiqui SA et al (2010) Robotic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors larger than 4 cm. Eur Urol 57:310–316 (Epub 2009/12/01)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Vattikuti Foundation for providing data. The authors would also like to thank Mrs. Tanvi Sharma (M Phil English) for English language editing

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urologic Oncology, Max Institute of Cancer Care, Saket, New Delhi, India

    Gopal Sharma, Milap Shah, Puneet Ahluwalia & Gagan Gautam

  2. King’s Health Partners, King’s College, London, UK

    Prokar Dasgupta

  3. Guys and St Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK

    Benjamin J. Challacombe

  4. Vattikuti Foundation, Detroit, MI, USA

    Mahendra Bhandari

  5. The Medicity Hospital, New Delhi, India

    Rajesh Ahlawat

  6. Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, India

    Sudhir Rawal

  7. Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, MI, Italy

    Nicolo M. Buffi

  8. Chennai Urology and Robotics Institute, Chennai, India

    Ananthakrishanan Sivaraman

  9. Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    James R. Porter

  10. Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA

    Craig Rogers

  11. ORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium

    Alexandre Mottrie

  12. Central Ohio Urology Group and Mount Carmel Health System Prostate Cancer Program, Columbus, OH, USA

    Ronney Abaza

  13. Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, South Korea

    Khoon Ho Rha

  14. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Royal Melbourne Clinical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Daniel Moon

  15. Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital, Mumbai, India

    Thyavihally B. Yuvaraja

  16. University of Miami Health System, Miami, FL, USA

    Dipen J. Parekh

  17. Urological Research Institute (URI), IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy

    Umberto Capitanio

  18. Center for Robotic and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Hospital Da Luz, Luz Sáude, Portugal

    Kris K. Maes

  19. San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital of Orbassano, Turin, Italy

    Francesco Porpiglia

  20. Department of Urology, Altunizade Hospital, Acıbadem M.A., Aydınlar University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Levent Turkeri

Authors
  1. Gopal Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Milap Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Puneet Ahluwalia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Prokar Dasgupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Benjamin J. Challacombe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mahendra Bhandari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rajesh Ahlawat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sudhir Rawal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Nicolo M. Buffi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ananthakrishanan Sivaraman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. James R. Porter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Craig Rogers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Alexandre Mottrie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Ronney Abaza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Khoon Ho Rha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Daniel Moon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Thyavihally B. Yuvaraja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Dipen J. Parekh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Umberto Capitanio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Kris K. Maes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Francesco Porpiglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Levent Turkeri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Gagan Gautam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All the authors were involved in data acquisition and manuscript editing. GS, MS, PA & GG were involved in conception, design, analysis, manuscript writing and editing. G.G was involved in supervision of the project.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gagan Gautam.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Ronney Abaza is a speaker for Intuitive surgical, Conmed Inc and VTI. Benjamin J Challacombe, Kris K Maes, Rajesh Ahlawat and Gagan Gautam are proctors for Intuitive surgical. Other authors report no conflict of interests.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This study is retrospective analysis of VCQI database and ethics approval was obtained from all the participating centers prior to data collection.

Informed consent

Need for consent waived off by ethics committee.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 21 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sharma, G., Shah, M., Ahluwalia, P. et al. Perioperative outcomes following robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in elderly patients. World J Urol 40, 2789–2798 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04171-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04171-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation