Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic Single-Port Kidney Surgery: The Chicago Approach

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Robotic Urologic Surgery

Abstract

Nephron-sparing surgery has become standard of care for the properly selected patient with a renal mass. Partial nephrectomy has been managed via open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches, and the robotic approach has been preferred in recent years due to decreased clamp times, better visualization, decreased transfusion rates, and a shorter learning curve as compared to laparoscopy. In comparison to the transperitoneal approach, the retroperitoneal approach to partial nephrectomy offers the advantage of direct access to the renal hilum, avoidance of the peritoneal space, and decreased postoperative ileus, blood loss, and hospital stay. However, the challenge of using a multiarmed robotic system within the confined space of the retroperitoneum made this approach less attractive to many surgeons. The da Vinci Single Port (SP) system is uniquely suited to retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy owing to the narrow profile of the device and flexible, articulated camera. This chapter will review the role of the single-port robot in the approach to the retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy and address specific technical considerations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Zagoria RJ. Imaging of small renal masses: a medical success story. Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175(4):945–55. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.175.4.1750945.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gill IS, Aron M, Gervais DA, Jewett MAS. Small renal mass. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(7):624–34. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp0910041.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Uzzo RG, Novick AC. Nephron sparing surgery for renal tumors: indications, techniques and outcomes. J Urol. 2001;166(1):6–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66066-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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(2):442–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67896-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Campbell S, Uzzo RG, Allaf ME, et al. Renal mass and localized renal cancer: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2017;198(3):520–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.04.100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2008.09.049.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pierorazio PM, Patel HD, Feng T, Yohannan J, Hyams ES, Allaf ME. Robotic-assisted versus traditional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison of outcomes and evaluation of learning curve. Urology. 2011;78(4):813–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.04.065.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Link RE, Bhayani SB, Allaf ME, et al. Exploring the learning curve, pathological outcomes and perioperative morbidity of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy performed for renal mass. J Urol. 2005;173(5):1690–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000154777.24753.1b.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Benway BM, Mottrie A, Bhayani SB. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. In: Patel VR, editor. Robotic urologic surgery. Springer: London; 2012. p. 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-800-1_28.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Ghani KR, Sukumar S, Sammon JD, Rogers CG, Trinh Q-D, Menon M. Practice patterns and outcomes of open and minimally invasive partial nephrectomy since the introduction of robotic partial nephrectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample. J Urol. 2014;191(4):907–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.10.099.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gill IS, Delworth MG, Munch LC. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 1994;152:1539–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)32465-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wright JL, Porter JR. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. J Urol. 2005;174(3):841–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000169423.94253.46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Patel M, Porter J. Robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy. World J Urol. 2013;31(6):1377–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1038-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shukla D, Small A, Mehrazin R, Palese M. Single-port robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy: initial clinical experience and lessons learned for successful outcomes. J Robot Surg. 2021;15(2):293–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01106-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kaouk J, Garisto J, Eltemamy M, Bertolo R. Pure single-site robot-assisted partial nephrectomy using the SP surgical system: initial clinical experience. Urology. 2019;124:282–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.11.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Feliciano J, Stifelman M. Robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy: a four-arm approach. JSLS. 2012;16(2):208–11. https://doi.org/10.4293/108680812X13427982376149.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Ren T, Liu Y, Zhao X, et al. Transperitoneal approach versus retroperitoneal approach: a meta-analysis of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e91978. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091978.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Partin AW, Dmochowski RR, Kavoussi LR, Peters CA. Campbell-Walsh-Wein urology. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Abaza R, Murphy C, Bsatee A, Brown DH, Martinez O. Single-port robotic surgery allows same-day discharge in majority of cases. Urology. 2021;148:159–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.08.092.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lenfant L, Kim S, Aminsharifi A, Sawczyn G, Kaouk J. Floating docking technique: a simple modification to improve the working space of the instruments during single-port robotic surgery. World J Urol. 2021;39(4):1299–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03307-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhao LC. Management of urethral stenosis after treatment for prostate cancer: NYU case of the month, august 2020. Rev Urol. 2020;22(3):133–4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Hou W, Zhong J, Pan B, et al. Paradoxical carbon dioxide embolism during laparoscopic surgery without intracardiac right-to-left shunt: two case reports and a brief review of the literature. J Int Med Res. 2020;48(8):030006052093381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060520933816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Li Y, Zhang E, Yuan H. Cerebral carbon dioxide embolism after kidney cancer laparoscopic surgery with full neurological recovery: a case report. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99(27):e20986. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000020986.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cottin V, Delafosse B, Viale J-P. Gas embolism during laparoscopy: a report of seven cases in patients with previous abdominal surgical history. Surg Endosc. 1996;10(2):166–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00188365.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Blum KA, Paulucci DJ, Abaza R, et al. Main renal artery clamping with or without renal vein clamping during robotic partial nephrectomy for clinical T1 renal masses: perioperative and long-term functional outcomes. Urology. 2016;97:118–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.08.028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Akpinar C, Suer E, Baklaci U, et al. The effect of renal artery-only or renal artery–vein clamping during partial nephrectomy on short and long-term functional results: is clamping technique important? Int Urol Nephrol. 2021;53(7):1317–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-021-02812-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Funahashi Y, Kato M, Yoshino Y, Fujita T, Sassa N, Gotoh M. Comparison of renal ischemic damage during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with artery-vein and artery-only clamping. J Endourol. 2014;28(3):306–11. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0446.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cao J, Zhu S, Ye M, et al. Comparison of renal artery vs renal artery-vein clamping during partial nephrectomy: a system review and meta-analysis. J Endourol. 2020;34(4):523–30. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0580.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Benway BM, Wang AJ, Cabello JM, Bhayani SB. Robotic partial nephrectomy with sliding-clip renorrhaphy: technique and outcomes. Eur Urol. 2009;55(3):592–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.12.028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lee Z, Reilly CE, Moore BW, Mydlo JH, Lee DI, Eun DD. Stone formation from nonabsorbable clip migration into the collecting system after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Case Rep Urol. 2014;2014:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/397427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Park KS, Sim YJ, Jung H. Migration of a Hem-o-Lok clip to the ureter following laparoscopic partial nephrectomy presenting with lower urinary tract symptoms. Int Neurourol J. 2013;17(2):90–2. https://doi.org/10.5213/inj.2013.17.2.90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Shrivastava P, Nayak B, Singh P. Migrated Hem-o-Lok clips in the ureter: a rare cause of recurrent urinary tract infection. BMJ Case Rep. 2017;2017:bcr2016219143. https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2016-219143.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urology Department, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Susan Talamini & Simone Crivellaro

Authors
  1. Susan Talamini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simone Crivellaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA

    Peter Wiklund

  2. Department of Urology, ORSI Academy, Aalst, Belgium

    Alexandre Mottrie

  3. Pediatric Urology, University of Chicago Medicine and Biological Sciences, Chicago, IL, USA

    Mohan S Gundeti

  4. Urology, Global Robotics Institute, Celebration, FL, USA

    Vipul Patel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Talamini, S., Crivellaro, S. (2022). Robotic Single-Port Kidney Surgery: The Chicago Approach. In: Wiklund, P., Mottrie, A., Gundeti, M.S., Patel, V. (eds) Robotic Urologic Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-00363-9_49

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-00363-9_49

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-00362-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-00363-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation