You have accessJournal of UrologyKidney Cancer: Localized: Surgical Therapy IV (MP49)1 Sep 2021MP49-20 SUTURELESS TECHNIQUE IN ROBOT-ASSISTED PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY: RESULTS FROM A PROPENSITY-SCORE MATCHED ANALYSIS Giuseppe Rosiello, Rui Farinha, Artur Paludo, Elio Mazzone, Stefano Puliatti, Marco Amato, Carlo Bravi, Ruben De Groote, Pietro Piazza, Camille Berquin, Francesco Montorsi, Peter Schatteman, Geert De Naeyer, Frederiek D’hondt, and Alexandre Mottrie Giuseppe RosielloGiuseppe Rosiello More articles by this author , Rui FarinhaRui Farinha More articles by this author , Artur PaludoArtur Paludo More articles by this author , Elio MazzoneElio Mazzone More articles by this author , Stefano PuliattiStefano Puliatti More articles by this author , Marco AmatoMarco Amato More articles by this author , Carlo BraviCarlo Bravi More articles by this author , Ruben De GrooteRuben De Groote More articles by this author , Pietro PiazzaPietro Piazza More articles by this author , Camille BerquinCamille Berquin More articles by this author , Francesco MontorsiFrancesco Montorsi More articles by this author , Peter SchattemanPeter Schatteman More articles by this author , Geert De NaeyerGeert De Naeyer More articles by this author , Frederiek D’hondtFrederiek D’hondt More articles by this author , and Alexandre MottrieAlexandre Mottrie More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002075.20AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for treatment of renal mass is gaining momentum. Despite efforts aimed at preserving renal function, the functional decline after RAPN is not negligible. Based on the risk of intraparenchymal vessels injuries during renorrhaphy, with consequently loss of functional renal parenchyma, we aimed at comparing perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing sutureless RAPN (suRAPN) vs. standard RAPN (stRAPN). METHODS: Ninety-two consecutive patients treated with RAPN for clinically localized renal mass (cT1-2) from January 2019 and June 2020 by a single surgeon were included. Propensity-score matching was used to account for baseline differences between suRAPN and stRAPN patients. Specifically, the matched cohorts of suRAPN and stRAPN patients were balanced according to covariates, including age at surgery, preoperative eGFR, clinical tumor size, tumor complexity, defined according to PADUA score, and any individual PADUA item. Chi-square test, t-test and Kruskal-Wallis test examined differences on perioperative outcomes between suRAPN vs. stRAPN patients. RESULTS: Overall, twenty-nine (31%) patients were treated with suRAPN. After 1:1 propensity-score matching, no residual differences remained between the two groups. Only one suRAPN patient experienced intraoperative complications(p=0.9), namely venus bleeding during hilar dissection. Two (6.9%) suRAPN vs. four (13.8%) stRAPN patients experienced 30-day postoperative complications (p=0.3). Operative time (110 vs. 150 min; p<0.01), and length of stay(2 vs. 3 days; p=0.02) were shorter in suRAPN vs. stRAPN patients. TRIFECTA outcomes were achieved in twenty-five (86%) suRAPN vs. twenty (70%) stRAPN patients. Finally, only one (3.4%) suRAPN vs. five (17%) stRAPN patients experienced postoperative AKI. CONCLUSIONS: Sutureless technique in RAPN is a feasible and safe procedure, which demonstrates similar rates of intra- andpostoperative complications compared to the standard technique. Moreover, performing suRAPN may ensure lowerimpact surgery, as demonstrated by shorter operative time and length of stay. Despite promising results on TRIFECTAand functional outcomes are shown, prospective, randomized, trials relying on a larger cohort of patients with longerfollow-up are needed to further assess the impact of sutureless technique on long-term renal function. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e884-e884 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Giuseppe Rosiello More articles by this author Rui Farinha More articles by this author Artur Paludo More articles by this author Elio Mazzone More articles by this author Stefano Puliatti More articles by this author Marco Amato More articles by this author Carlo Bravi More articles by this author Ruben De Groote More articles by this author Pietro Piazza More articles by this author Camille Berquin More articles by this author Francesco Montorsi More articles by this author Peter Schatteman More articles by this author Geert De Naeyer More articles by this author Frederiek D’hondt More articles by this author Alexandre Mottrie More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...
Read full abstract