Clinical, Pathologic, and Functional Outcomes After Nephron-Sparing Surgery in Patients with a Solitary Kidney: A Multicenter Experience

Abstract Background and Purpose: Surgical management of a renal neoplasm in a solitary kidney is a balance between oncologic control and preservation of renal function. We analyzed patients with a renal mass in a solitary kidney undergoing nephron-sparing procedures to determine perioperative, oncologic, and renal functional outcomes. Patients and Methods: A multicenter study was performed from 12 institutions. All patients with a functional or anatomic solitary kidney who underwent nephron-sparing surgery for one or more renal masses were included. Tumor size, complications, and recurrence rates were recorded. Renal function was assessed with serum creatinine level and estimated glomerular filtration rate. Results: Ninety-eight patients underwent 105 ablations, and 100 patients underwent partial nephrectomy (PN). Preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was similar between the groups. Tumors managed with PN were significantly larger than those managed with ablation (P<0.001). Ablations were associated with a lower overall complication rate (9.5% vs 24%, P=0.01) and higher local recurrence rate (6.7% vs 3%, P=0.04). Eighty-four patients had a preoperative eGFR ≥60?mL/min/1.73?m2. Among these patients, 19 (23%) fell below this threshold after 3 months and 15 (18%) at 12 months. Postoperatively, there was no significant difference in eGFR between the groups. Conclusions: Extirpation and ablation are both reasonable options for treatment. Ablation is more minimally invasive, albeit with higher recurrence rates compared with PN. Postoperative renal function is similar in both groups and is not affected by surgical approach.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98449/1/end%2E2012%2E0114.pd

Training, Credentialing, Proctoring And Medicolegal Risks Of Robotic Urological Surgery: Recommendations Of The Society Of Urologic Robotic Surgeons

Purpose: With the exponential growth of robotic urological surgery, particularly with robot assisted radical prostatectomy, guidelines for safe initiation of this technology are a necessity. Currently no standardized credentialing system exists to our knowledge to evaluate surgeon competency and safety with robotic urological surgery performance. Although proctoring is a modality by which such competency can be evaluated, other training tools and guidelines are needed to ensure that the requisite knowledge and technical skills to perform this procedure have been acquired. We evaluated the current status of proctoring and credentialing in other surgical specialties to discuss and recommend its application and implementation specifically for robot assisted radical prostatectomy. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the literature on safety and medicolegal implications of proctoring and the safe introduction of surgical procedures to develop recommendations for robot assisted radical prostatectomy proctoring and credentialing. Results: Proctoring is an essential mechanism for robot assisted radical prostatectomy institutional credentialing and should be a prerequisite for granting unrestricted privileges on the robot. This should be differentiated from preceptoring, wherein the expert is directly involved in hands-on training. Advanced technology has opened new avenues for long-distance observation through teleproctoring. Although the medicolegal implications of an active surgical intervention by a proctor are not clearly defined, the role as an observer should grant immunity from malpractice liability. Conclusions: The implementation of guidelines and proctoring recommendations is necessary to protect surgeons, proctors, institutions and, above all, the patients who are associated with the institutional introduction of a robot assisted radical prostatectomy program. With no current guidelines we anticipate this article will serve as a catalyst of interorganizational discussion to initiate regulatory oversight of surgeon certification and proctorship. © 2009 American Urological Association