Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Partial nephrectomy for hilar tumors: comparison of conventional open and robot-assisted approaches

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

To characterize clinical advantages in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for targeting renal hilar tumors, and compare them with those of open PN (OPN).

Methods

This study included 31 consecutive patients with renal hilar tumors, consisting of 15 and 16 who received OPN and RAPN, respectively, between January 2012 and May 2014. The perioperative and oncological outcomes of the two approaches were compared. In this series, a hilar tumor was defined as a renal cortical tumor located in the renal hilum that was shown, by preoperative imaging, to be in direct physical contact with the renal artery and/or vein.

Results

There were no significant differences between demographic variables of the OPN and RAPN groups. Intended surgical procedures were successfully completed for all 31 cases. Despite lack of a significant difference between ischemia times in the two groups, operative time for RAPN was significantly longer than for OPN, and estimated blood loss during RAPN was significantly less than that during OPN. There were no significant differences between incidence of postoperative complications or percentage decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate 4 weeks after surgery in the two groups. Indicators of postoperative recovery seemed to favor RAPN compared with OPN, with significant differences. No patient in either group was pathologically diagnosed with a positive surgical margin.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that, compared with OPN, RAPN is an effective, safe, and less invasive surgical option for renal hilar tumors.

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

References

  1. Gill IS, Aron M, Gervais DA et al (2010) Clinical practice. Small renal mass. N Engl J Med 362:624–634

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Lane BR et al (2007) Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors. J Urol 178:41–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gill IS, Colombo JR Jr, Frank I (2005) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for hilar tumors. J Urol 174:850–853

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Benway BM, Bhayani SB, Rogers CG et al (2009) Robot assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors: a multi-institutional analysis of perioperative outcomes. J Urol 182:866–872

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dulabon LM, Kaouk JH, Haber GP et al (2011) Multi-institutional analysis of robotic partial nephrectomy for hilar versus nonhilar lesions in 446 consecutive cases. Eur Urol 59:325–330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Abreu AL, Gill IS, Desai MM (2011) Zero-ischaemia robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) for hilar tumours. BJU Int 108:948–954

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Eyraud R, Long JA, Snow-Lisy D et al (2013) Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for hilar tumors: perioperative outcomes. Urology 81:1246–1251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Levey AS, Stevens LA, Schmid CH et al (2009) A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med 150:604–612

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  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 182:844–853

    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 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Campbell SC, Novick AC (1995) Surgical technique and morbidity of elective partial nephrectomy. Semin Urol Oncol 13:281–287

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tanaka K, Shigemura K, Furukawa J et al (2013) Comparison of the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach in robotic partial nephrectomy in an initial case series in Japan. J Endourol 27:1384–1388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Furukawa J, Miyake H, Tanaka K et al (2014) Console-integrated real-time three-dimensional image overlay navigation for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy with selective arterial clamping: early single-center experience with 17 cases. Int J Med Robot (in press)

  14. Porpiglia F, Volpe A, Billia M et al (2008) Laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy: analysis of the current literature. Eur Urol 53:732–742

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Aboumarzouk OM, Stein RJ, Eyraud R et al (2012) Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 62:1023–1033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Reisiger K, Venkatesh R, Figenshau RS et al (2005) Complex laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal hilar tumors. Urology 65:888–891

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lattouf JB, Beri A, D’Ambros O et al (2008) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for hilar tumors: technique and results. Eur Urol 54:409–416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Richstone L, Montag S, Ost M et al (2008) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for hilar tumors: evaluation of short-term oncologic outcome. Urology 71:36–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. George AK, Herati AS, Rais-Bahrami S et al (2014) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for hilar tumors: oncologic and renal functional outcomes. Urology 83:111–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Di Pierro GB, Tartaglia N, Aresu L et al (2014) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for endophytic hilar tumors: feasibility and outcomes. Eur J Surg Oncol 40:769–774

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Khalifeh A, Autorino R, Hillyer SP et al (2012) V-hilar suture renorrhaphy during robotic partial nephrectomy for renal hilar tumors: preliminary outcomes of a novel surgical technique. Urology 80:466–471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

All authors have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-1 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, 650-0017, Japan

    Hideaki Miyake, Nobuyuki Hinata, Satoshi Imai, Junya Furukawa, Kazushi Tanaka & Masato Fujisawa

Authors
  1. Hideaki Miyake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nobuyuki Hinata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Satoshi Imai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Junya Furukawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kazushi Tanaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Masato Fujisawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hideaki Miyake.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miyake, H., Hinata, N., Imai, S. et al. Partial nephrectomy for hilar tumors: comparison of conventional open and robot-assisted approaches. Int J Clin Oncol 20, 808–813 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-015-0783-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-015-0783-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation