Skip to main content
Log in

An increasing proportion of perinephric to subcutaneous fat is associated with adverse perioperative outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To investigate the association of perinephric fat (PF) thickness and the ratio of perinephric to subcutaneous fat (PF:SF) thickness on perioperative outcomes following robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN), 240 patients undergoing RPN with preoperative computed tomography (CT) axial imaging were included. Perinephric and subcutaneous fat thickness was measured at the level of the renal vein and umbilicus, respectively. The association between PF thickness and PF:SF ratio and perioperative outcomes was determined by Spearman correlation and logistic regression. 121 men and 119 women with a median age of 55 years, BMI of 32, tumor size of 2.6 cm, and RENAL nephrometry score of 6 were included. On preoperative imaging, median PF thickness was 2.2 cm, SF thickness was 3.1 cm, and PF:SF ratio was 0.63. There were statistically significant positive correlations between PF thickness (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.26, p = 0.001) and PF:SF ratio (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.33, p < 0.0001) with longer operative duration of RPN. In addition, an increasing PF:SF ratio was associated with a greater risk of perioperative complications (OR = 1.82, 95 % CI 1.1–3.0, p = 0.02). No association was observed with respect to ischemia time, blood loss, length of stay, or margin status. PF thickness is associated with longer OR duration, and a greater PF:SF ratio correlated with increased OR duration and complications following RPN. These easily measured indices of fat distribution are likely more accurate in predicting perioperative outcomes after RPN than BMI alone.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Daignault S, Hollenbeck SK (2006) Rising incidence of small renal masses: a need to reassess treatment effect. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(18):1331–1334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Novick AC, Campbell SC, Belldegrun A et al (2009) Guideline for the management of the clinical stage I renal mass. American Urologic Association. https://www.auanet.org/education/guidelines/renal-mass.cfm. Accessed 7 May 2015

  3. Ficarra V, Minervini A, Antonelli A et al (2014) A multicenter matched-pair analysis comparing robot-assisted versus open partial nephrectomy. BJU Int 113(6):936–941

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhang X, Shen Z, Zhong S, Zhu Z, Wang X, Xu T (2013) Comparison of peri-operative outcomes of robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a meta-analysis. BJU Int 112(8):1133–1142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Herman MP, Raman JD, Dong S, Samadi D, Scherr DS (2007) Increasing body mass index negatively impacts outcomes following robotic radical prostatectomy. JSLS 11(4):438–442

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Reynolds C, Hannon M, Lehman K, Harpster LE, Raman JD (2014) An obese body habitus does not preclude a minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. Can J Urol 21(1):7145–7149

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Colombo JR, Haber GP, Aron M, Xu M, Gill IS (2007) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in obese patients. Urology 69(1):44–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Naeem N, Petros F, Sukumar S et al (2011) Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy in obese patients. J Endourol 25(1):101–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Isac WE, Autorino R, Hillyer S, Hernandez AV, Stein RJ, Kaouk JH (2012) The impact of body mass index on surgical outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy. BJU Int 110(11 pt C):e997–e1002

  10. Ioffe E, Hakimi AA, Oh SK et al (2013) Effect of visceral obesity on minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. Urology 82(3):612–618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gorin MA, Mullins JK, Pierorazio PM, Jayram G, Allaf ME (2013) Increased intra-abdominal fat predicts perioperative complications following minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. Urology 81(6):1225–1230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Macleod LC, His RS, Gore JL, Wright JL, Harper JD (2014) Perinephric fat thickness is an independent predictor of operative complexity during robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. J Endourol 28(5):587–591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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(3):844–853

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jay D. Raman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Jay D. Raman, Christopher Reynolds, and Michael Hannon declare they have no conflict of interest related to the subject matter presented in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

Institutional Board Approval was obtained for this study with informed consent obtained for all individual participants included in this study.

Funding

This study was funded through the Keith and Linda Haring Urology Research Fund at the Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Raman, J.D., Reynolds, C. & Hannon, M. An increasing proportion of perinephric to subcutaneous fat is associated with adverse perioperative outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy. J Robotic Surg 10, 255–259 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0593-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0593-9

Keywords

Navigation