Abstract
Radical (RN) or partial nephrectomy (PN) are standard treatment for renal masses, with partial nephrectomy pursued whenever feasible for small renal masses. Most recently, robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) and robotic radical nephrectomy (RRN) have gained favor as they offer oncologic outcomes similar to their open surgical counter-part, but with benefits of less blood loss, quick recovery, less complications and similar functional outcomes (Nazemi et al., Int Braz J Urol 32:15–22, 2006; Park et al., Korean J Urol 53:519–23, 2012; Sterrett et al., World J Urol 25:193–8, 2007). In fact, RPN is the most common PN approach since 2012 and, currently, it is estimated that about 60% of PN in the USA are performed robotically. Nowadays, in centers with adequate expertise, indications for RPN are the same as for OPN; furthermore, contraindications for RPN are more surgeon- and patient-related, rather than tumor-related. As such, given adequate robotic expertise, in 2017, if a patient is deemed to be a candidate for OPN, he/she is also typically a candidate for RPN, thus delivering the considerable benefits of minimally invasive surgery. The number of RRN has also consistently increased and most recently, reports have shown safety and feasibility for RRN and robotic inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombectomy (RIVCT), as such, expanding the indications of the robotic approach (Abaza et al., Eur Urol Focus 2:601–7, 2017).
References
Nazemi T, et al. Radical nephrectomy performed by open, laparoscopy with or without hand-assistance or robotic methods by the same surgeon produces comparable perioperative results. Int Braz J Urol. 2006;32(1):15–22.
Park JW, et al. Cost aspects of radical nephrectomy for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma in Korea: open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted laparoscopic, and video-assisted minilaparotomy surgeries. Korean J Urol. 2012;53(8):519–23.
Sterrett S, et al. Major urological oncological surgeries can be performed using minimally invasive robotic or laparoscopic methods with similar early perioperative outcomes compared to conventional open methods. World J Urol. 2007;25(2):193–8.
Abaza R, Eun DD, Gallucci M, Gill IS, Menon M, Mottrie A, Shabsigh A. Robotic surgery for renal cell carcinoma with vena caval tumor thrombus. Eur Urol Focus. 2017;2(6):601–7.
Bernhard JC, et al. Personalized 3D printed model of kidney and tumor anatomy: a useful tool for patient education. World J Urol. 2016;34(3):337–45.
Ukimura O, Nakamoto M, Gill IS. Three-dimensional reconstruction of renovascular-tumor anatomy to facilitate zero-ischemia partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;61(1):211–7.
Kutikov A, Uzzo RG. The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J Urol. 2009;182(3):844–53.
Ficarra V, et al. Preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) classification of renal tumours in patients who are candidates for nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol. 2009;56(5):786–93.
Leslie S, et al. Renal tumor contact surface area: a novel parameter for predicting complexity and outcomes of partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol. 2014;66(5):884–93.
Simmons MN, et al. Kidney tumor location measurement using the C index method. J Urol. 2010;183(5):1708–13.
Davidiuk AJ, et al. Mayo adhesive probability score: an accurate image-based scoring system to predict adherent perinephric fat in partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol. 2014;66(6):1165–71.
Tomaszewski JJ, et al. Internal validation of the renal pelvic score: a novel marker of renal pelvic anatomy that predicts urine leak after partial nephrectomy. Urology. 2014;84(2):351–7.
Abreu AL, et al. Management of large median and lateral intravesical lobes during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2013;27(11):1389–92.
Hassouna HA, Manikandan R. Hemostasis in laparoscopic renal surgery. Indian J Urol. 2012;28(1):3–8.
Desai MM, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy with superselective versus main artery clamping: a retrospective comparison. Eur Urol. 2014;66(4):713–9.
Gill IS, et al. Improved hemostasis during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy using gelatin matrix thrombin sealant. Urology. 2005;65(3):463–6.
Blunt LW Jr, et al. Repair of superior mesenteric artery ligation during left nephrectomy with a native renal vein patch. Urology. 2004;64(2):377–8.
Albani JM, Novick AC. Renal artery pseudoaneurysm after partial nephrectomy: three case reports and a literature review. Urology. 2003;62(2):227–31.
Jung S, et al. Risk factors for postoperative hemorrhage after partial nephrectomy. Korean J Urol. 2014;55(1):17–22.
Tobis S, et al. Near infrared fluorescence imaging with robotic assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: initial clinical experience for renal cortical tumors. J Urol. 2011;186(1):47–52.
Hung AJ, et al. “Trifecta” in partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2013;189(1):36–42.
Bruner B, et al. Renal nephrometry score is associated with urine leak after partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2011;108(1):67–72.
Zargar H, et al. Urine leak in minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: analysis of risk factors and role of intraoperative ureteral catheterization. Int Braz J Urol. 2014;40(6):763–71.
Abbasi A, et al. Posterior lumbar vein off the retrohepatic inferior vena cava: a novel anatomical variant with surgical implications. J Urol. 2012;187(1):296–301.
Psutka SP, Leibovich BC. Management of inferior vena cava tumor thrombus in locally advanced renal cell carcinoma. Ther Adv Urol. 2015;7(4):216–29.
Kundavaram C, et al. Advances in robotic vena cava tumor thrombectomy: intracaval balloon occlusion, patch grafting, and vena cavoscopy. Eur Urol. 2016;70(5):884–90.
Das S. Laparoscopic staging pelvic lymphadenectomy: extraperitoneal approach. Semin Surg Oncol. 1996;12(2):134–8.
Collard JM, et al. Conservative treatment of postsurgical lymphatic leaks with somatostatin-14. Chest. 2000;117(3):902–5.
Ng CS, et al. Retroperitoneoscopic surgery is not associated with increased carbon dioxide absorption. J Urol. 1999;162(4):1268–72.
Wolf JS Jr, Stoller ML. The physiology of laparoscopy: basic principles, complications and other considerations. J Urol. 1994;152(2 Pt 1):294–302.
Abreu SC, et al. Thoracic complications during urological laparoscopy. J Urol. 2004;171(4):1451–5.
Liu W, et al. Off-clamp versus complete hilar control partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol. 2014;28(5):567–76.
Gettman MT, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: technique and initial clinical experience with DaVinci robotic system. Urology. 2004;64(5):914–8.
Caruso RP, et al. Robot assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: initial experience. J Urol. 2006;176(1):36–9.
Kaul S, et al. Da Vinci-assisted robotic partial nephrectomy: technique and results at a mean of 15 months of follow-up. Eur Urol. 2007;51(1): 186–91; discussion 191–2.
Aron M, et al. Robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison from a high-volume centre. BJU Int. 2008;102(1):86–92.
Deane LA, et al. Robotic versus standard laparoscopic partial/wedge nephrectomy: a comparison of intraoperative and perioperative results from a single institution. J Endourol. 2008;22(5):947–52.
Rogers CG, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy: A multi-institutional analysis. J Robot Surg. 2008;2(3):141–3.
Rogers CG, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy for renal hilar tumors: a multi-institutional analysis. J Urol. 2008;180(6):2353–6; discussion 2356.
Wang AJ, Bhayani SB. Robotic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: single-surgeon analysis of >100 consecutive procedures. Urology. 2009;73(2):306–10.
Michli EE, Parra RO. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: initial clinical experience. Urology. 2009;73(2):302–5.
Ho H, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: surgical technique and clinical outcomes at 1 year. BJU Int. 2009;103(5):663–8.
Benway BM, Bhayani SB. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: evolution and recent advances. Curr Opin Urol. 2010;20(2):119–24.
Patel MN, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors larger than 4 cm. Eur Urol. 2010;57(2):310–6.
Scoll BJ, et al. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a large single-institutional experience. Urology. 2010;75(6):1328–34.
Petros F, et al. Multi-institutional analysis of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for renal tumors >4 cm versus ≤4 cm in 445 consecutive patients. J Endourol. 2012;26(6):642–6.
Ficarra V, et al. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for renal tumors larger than 4 cm: results of a multicenter, international series. World J Urol. 2012;30(5):665–70.
Gupta GN, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for tumors greater than 4 cm and high nephrometry score: feasibility, renal functional, and oncological outcomes with minimum 1 year follow-up. Urol Oncol. 2013;31(1):51–6.
Rogers C, et al. Robotic nephrectomy for the treatment of benign and malignant disease. BJU Int. 2008;102(11):1660–5.
Hemal AK, Kumar A. A prospective comparison of laparoscopic and robotic radical nephrectomy for T1-2N0M0 renal cell carcinoma. World J Urol. 2009;27(1):89–94.
Boger M, et al. Comparison of robot-assisted nephrectomy with laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy. JSLS. 2010;14(3):374–80.
Lorenzo EIS, et al. Robotics applied in laparoscopic kidney surgery: the Yonsei University experience of 127 cases. Urology. 2011;77(1):114–8.
White MA, et al. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site radical nephrectomy: surgical technique and comparative outcomes. Eur Urol. 2011;59(5):815–22.
Dogra PN, et al. Outcomes following robotic radical nephrectomy: a single-center experience. Urol Int. 2012;89(1):78–82.
Khanna R, et al. Single institution experience with robot-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site renal procedures. J Endourol. 2012;26(3):230–4.
Wang LH, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (right) combined with inferior vena caval thrombectomy for level II tumor thrombus: The first clinical case in China. Acad J Second Mil Univ. 2014;35(7):763–8.
Gill IS, et al. Robotic Level III inferior vena cava tumor thrombectomy: initial series. J Urol. 2015;194(4):929–38.
Petros FG, Angell JE, Abaza R. Outcomes of robotic nephrectomy including highest-complexity cases: largest series to date and literature review. Urology. 2015;85(6):1352–8.
Abaza R, et al. Multi-institutional experience with robotic nephrectomy with inferior vena cava tumor thrombectomy. J Urol. 2016;195(4):865–71.
Davila HH, Storey RE, Rose MC. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy using the Da Vinci Si system: how to improve surgeon autonomy. Our step-by-step technique. J Robot Surg. 2016;10(3):285–8.
Helmers MR, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: comparative analysis and cost considerations. Can J Urol. 2016;23(5):8435–40.
Abaza R. Initial series of robotic radical nephrectomy with vena caval tumor thrombectomy. Eur Urol. 2011;59(4):652–6.
Ball MW, et al. Robot-assisted radical nephrectomy with inferior vena cava tumor thrombectomy: technique and initial outcomes. Can J Urol. 2015;22(1):7666–70.
Schmit GD, et al. Usefulness of R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scoring system for predicting outcomes and complications of percutaneous ablation of 751 renal tumors. J Urol. 2013;189(1):30–5.
Chang X, et al. The comparison of R.E.N.A.L., PADUA and centrality index score in predicting perioperative outcomes and complications after laparoscopic radio frequency ablation of renal tumors. J Urol. 2015;194(4):897–902.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Castro Abreu, A.L., Gill, T., Cacciamani, G. (2018). Complications of Robotic Oncologic Renal Surgery. In: John, H., Wiklund, P. (eds) Robotic Urology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65864-3_48
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65864-3_48
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-65863-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-65864-3
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)