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

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 scissors and 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 (1 = easy to 5 = prohibitive). The access device was assessed by using objective (time to complete insertion 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 the different 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

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 scissors and 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 (1 = easy to 5 = prohibitive). The access device was assessed by using objective (time to complete insertion 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 the different 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

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

Outcomes and predictors of benign histology in patients undergoing robotic partial or radical nephrectomy for renal masses: A multicenter study

Introduction Theaim of this study was to assess preoperative factors associated with benign histology in patients undergoing surgical removal of a renal mass and to analyze outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) for these masses. Material and methods Overall, 2,944 cases (543 benign and 2,401 malignant) who underwent robotic PN and RN between 2003–2018 at 10 institutions worldwide were included. The assessment of the predictors of benign histology was made at the final surgical pathology report. Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U, Pearson’s χ2, and logistic regression analysis were used. Results Patients in the benign group were mostly female (61 vs. 33%; p <0.001), with lower body mass index (BMI) (26.0 vs. 27.1 kg/m2; p <0.001). The benign group presented smaller tumor size (2.8 vs. 3.5 cm; p <0.001), R.E.N.A.L. score (6.0 vs. 7.0; p <0.001). There was a lower rate of hilar (11 vs.18%; p = 0.001), cT≥3 (1 vs. 4.5%; p <0.001) tumors in the benign group. There was a statistically significant higher rate of PN in the benign group (97 vs. 86%; p <0.001) as well as a statistically significant lower 30-day re-admission rate (2 vs. 5%; p = 0.081). Multivariable analysis showed male gender (OR: 0.52; p <0.001), BMI (OR: 0.95; p <0.001), and cT3a (OR: 0.22; p = 0.005) to be inversely associated to benign histology. Conclusions In 18% of cases, a benign histologic type was found. Only 3% of these tumors were treated with RN. Female gender, lower BMI, and higher T staging showed to be independent predictors of benign histology

Head to Head Impact of Margin, Ischemia, Complications, Score Versus a Novel Trifecta Score on Oncologic and Functional Outcomes After Robotic-assisted Partial Nephrectomy: Results of a Multicenter Series

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data describing the ability of margin, ischemia, complications, score (MIC) and trifecta in predicting long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN).OBJECTIVE: To compare a novel trifecta (negative margins, no significant complications, and perioperative estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] decrease 6430%) versus standard MIC as predictors of oncologic and functional results in a large series of RAPNs.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Between 2009 and 2019, a multicenter dataset was queried for patients with nonmetastatic renal masses who underwent RAPN at eight participating institutions.INTERVENTION: RAPN.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: MIC and trifecta achievement were determined for the overall cohort and a subgroup undergoing off-clamp RAPN (ocRAPN), respectively. The overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and new onset of end-stage renal disease (ESRD; defined as eGFR &lt;30 ml/min) probabilities were assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression analyses were used to identify predictors of OS, RFS, and ESRD. For all analyses, two-sided p &lt; 0.05 was considered significant.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Out of 1807 patients, MIC and trifecta were achieved in 71.1% (n = 1285) and 82.6% (n = 1492), respectively, and once restricted to the ocRAPN cohort, in 95.6% (n = 625) and 81.6% (n = 534), respectively. On Kaplan-Meier analysis, both MIC and trifecta achievement predicted higher OS and lower ESRD probabilities (all p &lt; 0.014), while only trifecta achievement was a predictor of RFS probabilities (p = 0.009). On multivariable Cox regression, MIC did not predict any of the endpoints independently, while trifecta achievement was an independent predictor of higher OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18-0.86; p = 0.019) and lower ESRD development probabilities (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15-0.72; p = 0.005).CONCLUSIONS: Trifecta, initially described as comprehensive measures of perioperative outcomes, needs to stand the test of time. Compared with MIC, the recent trifecta was an independent predictor of clinically significant endpoints, namely, survival and ESRD development probabilities.PATIENT SUMMARY: Our novel trifecta represents a reliable method for estimating survival and development of end-stage renal disease after robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy

Prostate cancer remains a significant health problem worldwide and is the second highest cause of cancer-related death in men. While there is uncertainty over which men will benefit from radical treatment, considerable efforts are being made to reduce treatment related side-effects and in optimising outcomes. This article reviews the development and introduction of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP), the results to date, and the possible future directions of RALP