Partial Nephrectomy

  • Andre Luis de Castro Abreu
  • Giovanni Cacciamani
  • Inderbir S. Gill
Chapter

Abstract

Over the past few years, RPN has emerged as a strong alternative to OPN and LPN due to several documented advantages including less blood loss, quick recovery, less complications. PN is a major operation and, as such, is associated with a not insignificant complication rate. Complications can be divided into intra- and post-operative categories and address the practical aspects of RPN surgery. Herein, we present, specific complications related to PN surgery and tips for prevention and management.

Keywords

Robotic partial nephrectomy Robot assisted partial nephrectomy RPN Complications 

References

  1. 1.
    Gill IS, et al. Clinical practice. Small renal mass. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(7):624–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Xia L, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies reporting perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy versus open partial nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2017;31(9):893–909.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gettman MT, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: technique and initial clinical experience with DaVinci robotic system. Urology. 2004;64(5):914–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caruso RP, et al. Robot assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: initial experience. J Urol. 2006;176(1):36–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rogers CG, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy: a multi-institutional analysis. J Robot Surg. 2008;2(3):141–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rogers CG, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy for renal hilar tumors: a multi-institutional analysis. J Urol. 2008;180(6):2353–6; discussion 2356.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Michli EE, Parra RO. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: initial clinical experience. Urology. 2009;73(2):302–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ho H, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: surgical technique and clinical outcomes at 1 year. BJU Int. 2009;103(5):663–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Benway BM, Bhayani SB. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: evolution and recent advances. Curr Opin Urol. 2010;20(2):119–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Patel MN, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors larger than 4 cm. Eur Urol. 2010;57(2):310–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scoll BJ, et al. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a large single-institutional experience. Urology. 2010;75(6):1328–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nguyen MM, Gill IS. Halving ischemia time during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2008;179(2):627–32; discussion 632.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Simmons MN, et al. Kidney tumor location measurement using the C index method. J Urol. 2010;183(5):1708–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Abreu AL, et al. Management of large median and lateral intravesical lobes during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2013;27(11):1389–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hassouna HA, Manikandan R. Hemostasis in laparoscopic renal surgery. Indian J Urol. 2012;28(1):3–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Desai MM, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy with superselective versus main artery clamping: a retrospective comparison. Eur Urol. 2014;66(4):713–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gill IS, et al. Improved hemostasis during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy using gelatin matrix thrombin sealant. Urology. 2005;65(3):463–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Novick AC, Campbell S, Belldegrun A, Blute ML, Chow GK, Derweesh IH, et al. Guidelines for management of the clinical stage I renal mass [Internet]. Linthicum: American Urological Association Education and Research Inc.; 2009. [cited 2012 Nov 10]. Available from: https://www.auanet.org/common/pdf/education/clinical-guidance/Renal-Mass.pdf . Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jung S, et al. Risk factors for postoperative hemorrhage after partial nephrectomy. Korean J Urol. 2014;55(1):17–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Satkunasivam R, et al. Robotic unclamped “minimal-margin” partial nephrectomy: ongoing refinement of the anatomic zero-ischemia concept. Eur Urol. 2015;68(4):705–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hung AJ, et al. “Trifecta” in partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2013;189(1):36–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bruner B, et al. Renal nephrometry score is associated with urine leak after partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2011;108(1):67–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ng CS, et al. Retroperitoneoscopic surgery is not associated with increased carbon dioxide absorption. J Urol. 1999;162(4):1268–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wolf JS Jr, Stoller ML. The physiology of laparoscopy: basic principles, complications and other considerations. J Urol. 1994;152(2 Pt 1):294–302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Abreu SC, et al. Thoracic complications during urological laparoscopy. J Urol. 2004;171(4):1451–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andre Luis de Castro Abreu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Giovanni Cacciamani
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Inderbir S. Gill
    • 1
  1. 1.Section of Robotic & Laparoscopic Surgery, Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of UrologyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Clinical UrologyKeck School of Medicine of University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Department of UrologyUniversity of Verona, Azienda Universitaria IntegrataVeronaItaly
  4. 4.Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations