You have accessJournal of UrologyTechnology & Instruments: Robotics/Laparoscopy/Ureteroscopy II1 Apr 2010909 ROBOTIC VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY: Georges-Pascal Haber, Wesley M. White, Rakesh Khanna, Michael A. White, Riccardo Autorino, Sebastien Crouzet, Sylvain Forest, and Jihad H. Kaouk Georges-Pascal HaberGeorges-Pascal Haber More articles by this author , Wesley M. WhiteWesley M. White More articles by this author , Rakesh KhannaRakesh Khanna More articles by this author , Michael A. WhiteMichael A. White More articles by this author , Riccardo AutorinoRiccardo Autorino More articles by this author , Sebastien CrouzetSebastien Crouzet More articles by this author , Sylvain ForestSylvain Forest More articles by this author , and Jihad H. KaoukJihad H. Kaouk More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.1665AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES We present comparative outcomes among matched patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) or laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) by a single surgeon at a single institution. METHODS Between March 2002 and August 2009, a retrospective review of medical charts of 261 consecutive patients who underwent LPN (n=186 ) or RPN (n=75) by a single surgeon (JHK) was performed. Patients were matched for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), ASA score, and tumor size, side, and location. Perioperative outcomes of both groups were compared. RESULTS A matched Cohort of 150 patients who underwent RPN (n = 75) or LPN (n = 75) were compared. There was no significant difference between the 2 cohorts with respect to patient age (p = 0.17), BMI (p = 0.68), ASA score (p = 0.96), preoperative eGFR (p = 0.54), or tumor size (p = 0.17). Mean operative time for RPN was 200 minutes versus 197 minutes for LPN (p = 0.75). Mean EBL was higher in the RPN cohort (323mL vs 222mL, p = 0.01). There was no significant difference between the 2 cohorts with respect to warm ischemia time (18.2 min vs 20.3min, p = 0.27), length of hospitalization (p = 0.84), % change in eGFR (p = 0.80), or adverse events (p = 0.52). All surgical margins were negative. CONCLUSIONS Although initial surgical experience with RPN was included in this study and compared to a vast experience in LPN by the same surgeon, RPN offers at least comparable outcomes to LPN with the potential of improved outcomes as experience in RPN accumulates. Cleveland, OH© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 183Issue 4SApril 2010Page: e355 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Georges-Pascal Haber More articles by this author Wesley M. White More articles by this author Rakesh Khanna More articles by this author Michael A. White More articles by this author Riccardo Autorino More articles by this author Sebastien Crouzet More articles by this author Sylvain Forest More articles by this author Jihad H. Kaouk More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Read full abstract