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

Single-Port Surgery: Laboratory Experience with the daVinci Single-Site Platform

This animal study demonstrates that single-port robotic surgery using the VeSPA platform can allow the performance of technically challenging procedures within acceptable operative times and without complications or insertion of additional trocars

Resultados oncológicos da nefrectomia radical laparoscópica no tratamento do carcinoma renal

PURPOSE: To report the 5-year oncological outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal cancer compared to a cohort of patients undergoing open radical nephrectomy. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 88 patients undergoing radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma prior to January 2000. Of these, 45 patients underwent laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, and 43 patients underwent open radical nephrectomy. Inclusion criteria comprised clinically organ-confined tumors of 15 cm or less in size without concomitant lymphadenopathy or vena cava thrombus. Oncological follow-up data were obtained from charts, radiological reports, and phone calls to patients or their families, and were calculated from the date of surgery to the date of last appointment with physician or date of death. RESULTS: All laparoscopic procedures were completed without open conversion. On comparing the laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and open radical nephrectomy groups, mean tumor size was 5. 8 vs 6.2 cm (P = . 44), mean blood loss was 183 vs 461 mL (P = . 004), and mean operative time was 2.8 vs 3.7 hrs (P < . 001). Over a mean follow-up of 5 years in the laparoscopic radical nephrectomy group and 6 years in the open radical nephrectomy group, the overall survival was 81% vs 79% (P = . 47), and cancer-specific survival was 90% vs 92% (P = . 70) , respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal cancer confers equivalent 5-year oncological outcomes to those of open surgery.OBJETIVO: Relatar os resultados oncológicos após 5 anos de seguimento em pacientes submetidos a nefrectomia radical laparoscópica para tratamento do câncer renal, comparando esses com os resultados obtidos com um grupo de pacientes submetidos a nefrectomia radical aberta. MÉTODOS: Foram analisadas retrospectivamente as informações obtidas de 88 pacientes submetidos a nefrectomia radical para o tratamento do carcinoma renal realizadas previamente a Janeiro de 2000. Destes pacientes, 45 foram tratados com nefrectomia radical laparoscópica e 43 com nefrectomia radical aberta. Foram incluídos pacientes com tumores localizados com tamanho máximo de 15 cm, sem adenopatia ou sinal de envolvimento de veia renal na avaliação radiologica pré-operatória. As informações sobre o seguimento dos pacientes foram obtidas a partir de prontuários, laudos de exames radiológicos e ligações telefônicas para pacientes e/ou familiares. O seguimento foi calculado desde a data da cirurgia até a última consulta médica ou data de falecimento. RESULTADOS: Todos os procedimentos laparoscópicos foram realizados sem conversão para a técnica aberta. O tamanho médio tumoral foi de 5.8 e. 6.2 cm (P=0.44), perda sanguínea estimada de 183 e. 461 mL (P=0.004), e tempo operatório de 2.8 e. 3.7 horas (

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