Abstract
Introduction
Partial nephrectomy is the standard of care for cT1a renal masses, offering equivalent oncologic outcomes and lower renal function impairment when compared to radical nephrectomy, with excellent overall survival results. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) allows to perform a precise tumor excision, simplifying the reconstruction steps of the procedure, especially in the treatment of complex or large renal tumors. Aim of this study was to summarize the available perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of RAPN performed for complex and/or large (cT1b) renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
Materials and methods
We performed a nonsystematic review of the literature using a free-text protocol in the Medline database, using the terms “robot-assisted partial nephrectomy” and “robotic partial nephrectomy.” Two Authors reviewed separately to select RAPN series reporting data about complex and cT1b RCC. Other significant studies cited in the reference lists of the selected papers were also evaluated.
Evidence synthesis
According to the currently available evidences, RAPN offers promising results in terms of perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes for the conservative management of complex or large renal tumors, even when compared with open and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Robot-assisted procedure allows surgeons to treat large and challenging renal masses, even if with higher warm ischemia time, operating time, and estimated blood loss in comparison with those obtained for the treatment of smaller lesions.
Conclusions
In the hands of experienced surgeons, RAPN is a safe and reproducible approach for the treatment of cT1b and more challenging renal tumors, and could represent the way to expand the indications for minimally invasive conservative approach to RCC.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
MacLennan S, Imamura M, Lapitan MC et al (2012) Systematic review of oncological outcomes following surgical management of localized renal cancer. Eur Urol 61:972–993
Kim SP, Thompson H, Boorjan SA et al (2012) Comparative effectiveness for survival and renal function of partial and radical nephrectomy for localized renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol 188:51–57
Weight CG, Larson BT, Fergany AF et al (2010) Nephrectomy induced chronic renal insufficiency is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular death and death from any cause in patients with localized cT1b renal masses. J Urol 183:1317–1323
Van Poppel H, Da Pozzo L, Albrecht W et al (2011) A prospective, randomised EORTC intergroup phase 3 study comparing the oncologic outcome of elective nephron-sparing surgery and radical nephrectomy for low-stage renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 59:543–552
Campbell SC, Novick AC, Belldegrun A et al (2009) Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass. J Urol 182:1271–1279
Ljungberg B, Cowan NC, Hanbury DC et al (2010) EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2010 update. Eur Urol 2010(58):398–404
Becker F, Van Poppel H, Hakenberg OW et al (2009) Assessing the impact of ischaemia time during partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 56(4):625–634
Patel MN, Krane LS, Bhandari A et al (2010) Robot partial nephrectomy for renal tumors larger than 4 cm. Eur Urol 57:310–316
Gupta GN, Boris R, Chung P et al (2011) Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for tumors greater than 4 cm and high nephrometry score: feasibility, renal functional, and oncologic outcomes with minimum 1 year follow-up. Urol Oncol. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.10.008
Sprenkle PC, Power N, Ghoneim T et al (2012) Comparison of open and minimally invasive partial nephrectomy for renal tumors 4–7 centimeters. Eur Urol 61:593–599
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 182:866–873
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
Ficarra V, Novara G, Secco S et al (2009) Preoperative aspects and dimensions used for ana anatomical (PADUA) classification of renal tumors in patients who are candidates for nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol 56:786–793
Rogers CG, Metwalli A, Blatt AM et al (2008) Robotic partial nephrectomy for renal hilar tumors: a multi-institutional analysis. J Urol 180(6):2353–2356
Gong Y, Du C, Josephson DY et al (2010) Four-arm robotic partial nephrectomy for complex renal cell carcinoma. World J Urol 28(1):111–115
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
Ficarra V, Bhayani S, Porter J et al (2012) Predictors of warm ischemia time and perioperative complications in a multicenter, international series of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 61:395–402
Simhan J, Smaldone MC, Tsai KJ et al (2012) Perioperative outcomes of robotic and open partial nephrectomy for moderately and highly complex renal lesions. J Urol 187:2000–2004
Long JA, Yakoubi R, Lee B et al (2012) Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for complex tumors:comparison of perioperative outcomes. Eur Urol 61:1257–1262
Ficarra V, Bhayani S, Porter J et al (2012) Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for renal tumors larger than 4 cm: results of a multicenter, international series. World J Urol 30:665–670
Petros F, Sukumar S, Haber GP et al (2012) Multi-institutional analysis of robot assisted partial nephrectomy for renal tumors > 4 cm versus ≤ 4 cm in 445 consecutive patients. J Endourol 26:642–646
Conflict of interest
I certify that there is no actual or potential conflict of interests in relation to this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Borghesi, M., Schiavina, R., Gan, M. et al. Expanding utilization of robotic partial nephrectomy for clinical T1b and complex T1a renal masses. World J Urol 31, 499–504 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1095-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1095-2