Robotic Partial Nephrectomy

  • Kemal Ener
  • Abdullah Erdem Canda


Currently, most kidney masses are identified incidentally with a smaller size due to the widespread usage of radiologic imaging modalities in the world. Although radical nephrectomy is the gold standard surgical approach in the management of renal masses, partial nephrectomy has proved to have similar oncological outcomes with the advantage of preserving residual kidney function. Minimally invasive surgical approaches including laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic approaches are increasingly being applied in the surgical treatment of kidney masses. Compared to laparoscopic approach, robotic surgery has the advantages of three-dimensional optical magnification, dexterity in motion, and the ability to perform tremor-free and delicate movements with three independent robotic arms in addition to the camera arm for the console surgeon. Current literature on robotic partial nephrectomy suggests that this approach is safe and feasible in the management of renal masses. In this chapter, an overview of the literature on this subject is summarized, and the surgical technique applied is presented including preoperative planning, setup, and postoperative care.


Robotic partial nephrectomy Kidney cancer Minimally invasive surgery 


  1. 1.
    Kirkali Z, Canda AE. Open partial nephrectomy in the management of small renal Masses. Adv Urol. 2008;2008:309760. Published online 2008 Jul 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Canfield S, et al. EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2014 update. Eur Urol. 2015;67(5):913–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Minervini A, Vittori G, Antonelli A, Celia A, Crivellaro S, Dente D, et al. Open versus robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy: a multicenter comparison study of perioperative results and complications. World J Urol. 2014;32:287–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fergany AF, Hafez KS, Novick AC. Long-term results of nephron sparing surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: 10- year followup. J Urol. 2000;163:442–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gettman MT, Blute ML, Chow GK, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: technique and initial clinical experience with DaVinci robotic system. Urology. 2004;64:914–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abreu AL, Gill IS, Desai MM. Zero-ischaemia robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) for hilar tumours. BJU Int. 2011;108:948–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Novak R, Mulligan D, Abaza R. Robotic partial nephrectomy without renal ischemia. Urology. 2012;79:1296–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaczmarek BF, Tanagho YS, Hillyer SP, Mullins JK, Diaz M, Trinh QD, et al. Off-clamp robot-assisted partial nephrectomy preserves renal function: a multi-institutional propensity score analysis. Eur Urol. 2013;64:988–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    George AK, Herati AS, Srinivasan AK, Rais-Bahrami S, Waingankar N, Sadek MA, et al. Perioperative outcomes of off-clamp vs complete hilar control laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2013;111:E235–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Papalia R, Simone G, Ferriero M, Guaglianone S, Costantini M, Giannarelli D, et al. Laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy without renal ischaemia for tumours larger than 4 cm: perioperative and functional outcomes. World J Urol. 2012;30:671–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gill IS, Patil MB, Abreu AL, Ng C, Cai J, Berger A, et al. Zero ischemia anatomical partial nephrectomy: a novel approach. J Urol. 2012;187:807–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ener K, Canda AE, Altınova S, Atmaca AF, Alkan E, Asil E, Özcan MF, Akbulut Z, Balbay MD. Impact of robotic partial nephrectomy with and without ischemia on renal functions: experience in 34 cases. Turk J Urol. 2016;42(4):272–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dionigi G, Boni L, Rovera F, Dionigi R. Dissection and hemostasis with hydroxylated polyvinyl acetal tampons in open thyroid surgery. Ann Surg Innov Res. 2007;1:3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Richter F, Schnorr D, Deger S, Trk I, Roigas J, Wille A, Loening SA. Improvement of hemostasis in open and laparoscopically performed partial nephrectomy using a gelatin matrix-thrombin tissue sealant (FloSeal). Urology. 2007;61(1):73–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baumert H, Ballaro A, Shah N, Mansouri D, Zafar N, Molinie V, Neal D. Reducing warm ischaemia time during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a prospective comparison of two renal closure techniques. Eur Urol. 2007;52(4):1164–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rouach Y, Delongchamps NB, Patey N, Fontaine E, Timsit MO, Thiounn N, Mejean A. Suture or hemostatic agent during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy? A randomized study using a hypertensive porcine model. Urology. 2009;73(1):172–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gill IS, Ramani AP, Spaliviero M, Xu M, Finelli A, Kaouk JH, Desai MM. Improved hemostasis during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy using gelatin matrix thrombin sealant. Urology. 2005;65(3):463–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morelli L, Morelli J, Palmeri M, D’Isidoro C, Kauffmann EF, Tartaglia D, Caprili G, Pisano R, Guadagni S, Di Franco G, Di Candio G, Mosca F. Robotic surgery and hemostatic agents in partial nephrectomy: a high rate of success without vascular clamping. J Robot Surg. 2015;9(3):215–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Simhan J, Smaldone MC, Tsai KJ, et al. Perioperative outcomes of robotic and open partial nephrectomy for moderately and highly complex renal lesions. J Urol. 2012;187(6):2000–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sprenkle PC, Power N, Ghoneim T, et al. Comparison of open and minimally invasive partial nephrectomy for renal tumors 4–7 centimeters. Eur Urol. 2012;61(3):593–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee S, Oh J, Hong SK, et al. Open versus robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: effect on clinical outcome. J Endourol. 2011;25(7):1181–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shen Z, Xie L, Xie W, Hu H, Chen T, Xing C, Liu X, Xu H, Zhang Y, Wu Z, Tian D, Wu C. The comparison of perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted and openpartial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2016;14(1):220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mearini L, Nunzi E, Vianello A, Di Biase M, Porena M. Margin and complication rates in clampless partial nephrectomy: a comparison of open, laparoscopic and robotic surgeries. J Robot Surg. 2016;10(2):135–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ng CS, Gill IS, Ramani AP, Steinberg AP, Spaliviero M, Abreu SC, Kaouk JH, Desai MM. Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: patient selection and perioperative outcomes. J Urol. 2005;174(3):846–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kieran K, Montgomery JS, Daignault S, Roberts WW, Wolf JS Jr. Comparison of intraoperative parameters and perioperative complications of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: support for a retoperitoneal approach in selected patients. J Endourol. 2007;21(7):754–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fan X, Xu K, Lin T, Liu H, Yin Z, Dong W, Huang H, Huang J. Comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2013;111(4):611–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Xia L, Zhang X, Wang X, Xu T, Qin L, Zhang X, Zhong S, Shen Z. Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2016;30:109–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Png KS, Bahler CD, Milgrom DP, Lucas SM, Sundaram CP. The role of R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score in the era of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2013;27:304–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hanzly M, Frederick A, Creighton T, Atwood K, Mehedint D, Kauffman EC, Kim HL, Schwaab T. Learning curves for robot-assisted and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2015;29(3):297–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Porpiglia F, Mari A, Bertolo R, Antonelli A, Bianchi G, Fidanza F, Fiori C, Furlan M, Morgia G, Novara G, Rocco B, Rovereto B, Serni S, Simeone C, Carini M, Minervini A. Partial nephrectomy in clinical T1b renal tumors: multicenter comparative study of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted approach (the RECORd Project). Urology. 2016;89:45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Leow JJ, Heah NH, Chang SL, Chong YL, Png KS. Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: an updated meta-analysis of 4,919 patients. J Urol. 2016;196(5):1371–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kim JH, Park YH, Kim YJ, Kang SH, Byun SS, Kwak C, Hong SH. Perioperative and long-term renal functional outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a multicenter matched-pair comparison. World J Urol. 2015;33(10):1579–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Choi JD, Park JW, Lee HW, Lee DG, Jeong BC, Jeon SS, Lee HM, Choi HY, Seo SI. A comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of robot-assisted versus pure laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. JSLS. 2013;17(2):292–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ener K, Canda AE, Altinova S, Atmaca AF, Alkan E, Asil E, Ozcan MF, Akbulut Z, Balbay MD. Robotic partial nephrectomy for clinical stage T1 tumors: experience in 42 cases. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2016;32(1):16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Canda AE, Balbay MD. Robotic zero ischemia partial nephrectomy: step by step surgical technique with tips and tircks. Robot Surg Res Rev. 2014;1:1–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kemal Ener
    • 1
  • Abdullah Erdem Canda
    • 2
  1. 1.Umraniye Training and Research Hospital, Department of UrologyIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Koc University, School of MedicineDepartment of UrologyIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations