Robotic partial nephrectomy for posterior tumors through a retroperitoneal approach offers decreased length of stay compared with the transperitoneal approach: A propensity-matched analysis

INTRODUCTION: We sought to compare surgical outcomes between transperitoneal and retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) for posterior tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using our multi-institutional RPN database, we reviewed 610 consecutive cases for posterior renal masses treated between 2007 and 2015. Primary outcomes were complications, operative time, length of stay (LOS), surgical margin status, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) preservation. Secondary outcomes were estimated blood loss, warm ischemia time (WIT), disease recurrence, and disease-specific mortality. Due to significant differences in treatment year and tumor size between approaches, retroperitoneal cases were matched 1:4 to transperitoneal cases based on propensity scores using the greedy algorithm. Outcomes were compared between approaches using the chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: After matching, 296 transperitoneal and 74 retroperitoneal cases were available for analysis, and matched groups were well balanced in terms of treatment year, age, gender, race, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification (ASA) score, body mass index, tumor laterality, tumor size, R.E.N.A.L. (radius, exophytic/endophytic properties, nearness of tumor to the collecting system or sinus, anterior/posterior, location relative to polar lines) score, and hilar location. Compared with transperitoneal, the retroperitoneal approach was associated with significantly shorter mean LOS (2.2 vs 2.6 days, p = 0.01), but longer mean WIT (21 vs 19 minutes, p = 0.01). Intraoperative (p = 0.35) and postoperative complications (p = 0.65), operative time (p = 0.93), positive margins (p = 1.0), and latest eGFR preservation (p = 0.25) were not significantly different between approaches. No differences were detected in the other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among high-volume surgeons, transperitoneal and retroperitoneal RPN achieved similar outcomes for posterior renal masses, although with slight differences in LOS and WIT. Retroperitoneal RPN may be an effective option for the treatment of certain small posterior renal masses

Public perception of "scarless" surgery : a critical analysis of the literature

Evidence relating to the perception and view of patients and physicians on natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) was scrutinized. A comprehensive literature search was performed through PubMed. A total of 18 studies were included in the analysis. Patients demonstrated interest in scarless surgery, with a preference for LESS over NOTES. Safety and efficacy remain the key factors in the decision-making process of patients. With more information about the safety and reproducibility of LESS and NOTES, and with improved educational efforts, patients and physicians alike may feel more comfortable in widespread application of scarless surgery.(undefined

Prospective multi-center study of oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for pT1 renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Partial nephrectomy has been increasingly recommended over radical nephrectomy for the management of small renal masses based on improved renal functional outcomes without sacrifice of oncologic effectiveness. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) has been introduced in an effort to offer another minimally invasive option for nephron-sparing surgery. However, reports of RAPN have been limited to short-term perioperative outcomes. The goal of this study is to report and evaluate the initial oncologic outcomes of RAPN. Utilizing prospectively obtained data on RAPN performed by four surgeons at four separate tertiary care centers, we selected patients with unilateral, localized, non-familial, pathologically-confirmed pT1 renal cell carcinoma and a minimum post-operative follow-up of 12 months. METHODS: Utilizing prospectively obtained data on RAPN performed by four surgeons at four separate tertiary care centers, we selected patients with unilateral, localized, non-familial, pathologically-confirmed pT1 renal cell carcinoma and a minimum post-operative follow-up of 12 months. Survival analysis (disease-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival) was performed, and Kaplan-Meier curves were generated. RESULTS: RAPN was performed in 124 patients with a median tumor size of 3.0 cm (IQR 2.2-4.2 cm). Median follow-up was 29 months (range 12-46 months). Positive parenchymal surgical margins occurred in two patients (1.6 %), both of whom were recurrence-free at 30 and 34 months after surgery. The three-year Kaplan-Meier estimated disease-free survival was 94.9 %, cancer-specific survival was 99.1 %, and overall survival was 97.3 %. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort of patients with small renal carcinomas who were followed for a median of 29 months, recurrence and survival outcomes were similar to those reported for open and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Further long-term outcomes will be needed to definitively claim that RAPN is oncologically equivalent to other surgical approaches

Low-cost reusable instrumentation for laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy : assessment in a porcine model

Purpose: To test different sets of prebent instruments and a new reusable access device for laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery. Materials and Methods: Three surgeons with previous experience in LESS performed 12 nephrectomies in six pigs. In all procedures, a multichannel access device (X-CONE_) and a 5-mm extra-long telescope were used. Four sets of prebent instruments with different profiles (S-portal_) were tested: Standard (one straight scissorsand one curved grasper), Cuschieri, Carus, and Leroy set (each of them consisting of two curved instruments with different configurations). Assessment was performed based on both objective (procedure time; time to manage the pedicle; time to free kidney) and subjective parameters (entry=exit of instruments; triangulation; dissection up=down; dissection lateral; retraction; interdependence). The subjective assessment tool used was a Likert type scale (1¼easy to 5¼prohibitive). The access device was assessed by using objective (time to completeinsertion of device after skin incision) and subjective (significant air leakage, movement constraint) parameters. Results: Time to insertion of the X-CONE was <1 minute in all the cases. Surgeons reported significant insufflant leakage in 58% of cases. The procedure was completed in 10=12 (83%) cases. Mean operative time was 8.3_4.2 minutes, being lower for the Carus group (4.5 min) and higher for the standard group (13 min). Among thedifferent sets, the standard one obtained the best mean scores for all subjective parameters. Conclusions: X-CONE allows easy abdominal access, and its reusable properties represent cost savings for LESS compared with disposable devices. Prebent instruments might also represent attractive low-cost tools for LESS