Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy Group Research Articles

Trans-retro-peritoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for posterior hilar tumor: technical feasibility and preliminary results.

Urologists still encounter challenges when it comes to the surgical management of tumors located on the posterior lip and posterior renal hilar region. We propose a trans-retro-peritoneal (TRP) technique to address the difficulties associated with posterior hilar tumors during retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). Its efficacy was evaluated in a retrospective case-control study. The patients with posterior hilar tumors (≤7 cm) that underwent retroperitoneal LPN were included. The TRP technique allowed the posterior hilar tumor completely visible by incising the ventral peritoneum and rotating kidney ventrally during retroperitoneal LPN, which was applied in 36 cases, while the conventional retroperitoneal LPN was performed in 22 cases. Perioperative data were analyzed to evaluate the efficacy of TRP-LPN. In TRP-LPN group, the TRP technique was successfully performed in all the patients without converting to open surgery or radical nephrectomy. The warm ischemia time was significantly shorter in TRP-LPN group than conventional LPN group (20.3 vs. 28.5 min, P<0.001). Furthermore, the mean estimated blood loss in TRR-LPN group was significantly less than that in conventional LPN group (86.5 vs. 90.9 mL, P<0.05). The mean operation time and recovery time of gastrointestinal function were similar between two groups. No severe complications occurred, and no positive surgical margin was found. The rate of Trifecta achievement was 50.0% (18/36) and 31.8% (7/22) respectively for TRP-LPN and conventional LPN (P=0.175). After mean follow-up of 21 months, no recurrence or metastasis occurred in all cases. Our findings, as demonstrated by the Trifecta outcomes, support the feasibility and efficacy of TRP-LPN in managing posterior renal hilar tumors. This approach may be considered as an efficient option for surgical management of such tumors.

Laparoscopic partial versus radical nephrectomy for localized renal cell carcinoma over 4 cm

PurposeTo compare the long-term clinical and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) > 4 cm.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the records of all patients who underwent LPN or LRN in our department from January 2012 to December 2017. Of the 151 patients who met the study selection criteria, 54 received LPN, and 97 received LRN. After propensity-score matching, 51 matched pairs were further analyzed. Data on patients’ surgical data, complications, histologic data, renal function, and survival outcomes were collected and analyzed.ResultsCompared with the LRN group, the LPN group had a longer operative time (135 min vs. 102.5 min, p = 0.001), larger intraoperative bleeding (150 ml vs. 50 ml, p < 0.001), and required longer stays in hospital (8 days vs. 6 days, p < 0.001); however, the level of ECT-GFR was superior at 3, 6, and 12 months (all p < 0.001). Similarly, a greater number of LRN patients developed CKD compared with LPN until postoperative 12 months (58.8% vs. 19.6%, p < 0.001). In patients with preoperative CKD, LPN may delay the progression of the CKD stage and even improve it when compared to LRN treatment. There were no significant differences between the two groups for OS, CSS, MFS, and PFS (p = 0.06, p = 0.30, p = 0.90, p = 0.31, respectively). The surgical method may not be a risk factor for long-term survival prognosis.ConclusionLPN preserves renal function better than LRN and has the potential value of significantly reducing the risk of postoperative CKD, but the long-term survival prognosis of patients is comparable.

Comparisons of the Safety and Effectiveness of Robot-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for Central Renal Angiomyolipomas: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Study.

Objective: To compare the safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) vs laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) in the treatment of central renal angiomyolipomas (AMLs). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 103 patients who were treated with either RAPN or LPN for central AMLs between January 2017 and June 2022. Propensity scores were matched according to sex, age, laterality, body mass index, symptoms, diameter of tumor, location of tumor distribution, R.E.N.A.L score, preoperative hemoglobin, preoperative serum creatinine, preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate, chronic disease, previous abdominal surgery, preoperative selective arterial embolization, American Society of Anesthesiologists scale, and duration of follow-up, and after matching, perioperative and prognostic data of the two groups were compared. Results: A total of 57 patients underwent RAPN, and 46 patients underwent LPN. Before matching, there were more complex AMLs in the RAPN group, and R.E.N.A.L scores differed between the two groups (10 vs 9, p < 0.001). After matching, the median warm ischemic time in the RAPN group was significantly shorter than that in the LPN group (21.5 minutes vs 28 minutes, p = 0.034), as well as the median time of postoperative mobilization (1 day vs 2 days, p < 0.001). The other indicators were not significantly different between the groups. Conclusions: For central AMLs, both RAPN and LPN were safe and feasible surgical treatments, but RAPN might be associated with shorter warm ischemia time and earlier postoperative mobilization.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma in patients with severe chronic kidney disease.

To compare surgical and functional outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy in patients with renal cell carcinoma with stage 4 chronic kidney disease. This was a retrospective analysis of 60 patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate 15-30 ml/min/1.73 m2 ) who underwent partial nephrectomy for T1 renal cell carcinoma between April 2004 and April 2020. We compared perioperative outcomes according to the surgical approach. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictive factors for end-stage renal disease. Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy were performed in 31 and 29 patients, respectively. The median age was 68 years and 17% of all patients were women. Patient and tumor characteristics did not differ between groups. The operative time (155.2 vs. 221.0 min, p < 0.0001) and the postoperative length of hospital stay (5.2 vs. 10.6 days, p = 0.0083) were significantly shorter, and the estimated blood loss was lower (53.4 vs. 363.2 ml, p = 0.0003) in the robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy group than in the open partial nephrectomy group. Preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate was the only significant predictor of end-stage renal disease after partial nephrectomy on multivariable analysis. Both procedures preserved renal function in this patient cohort, delaying the requirement for postoperative dialysis. Furthermore, robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy was associated with shorter operative time and postoperative length of hospital stay, as well as lesser estimated blood loss than open partial nephrectomy.

A Prospective, Randomized Trial Comparing the Outcomes of Open vs Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy.

Partial nephrectomy is the standard treatment for renal tumors <7 cm, and the trend toward minimally invasive surgery has increased. However, data that could support its use and benefits are still lacking. We conducted a prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing surgical, functional and oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing open partial nephrectomy (OPN) or laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). Randomization was 1:1 to OPN or LPN for the treatment of renal tumors <7 cm. The primary endpoint was surgical complications up to 90 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes were comparison of surgical, oncologic and functional results. We randomized 208 patients between 2012 and 2020 (110 with OPN vs 98 with LPN). Operative data showed no differences in operative time, warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss, transfusions or length of hospital stay. Zero ischemia was more frequent in the OPN (35.4% vs 15.5%, p=0.02). OPN was associated with more abdominal wall complications (31.2% vs 13.1%, p=0.004). Regarding oncologic outcomes, no differences were noted. The LPN group had less kidney function reduction at 3 (-5.2% vs -10%, p=0.04; CI 0.09 to 9.46) and 12 months after surgery (-0.8% vs -6.3%, p=0.02; CI 1.18 to 12.95), and a lower rate of downstaging on the chronic kidney disease classification at 12 months (14.1% vs 32.6%, p=0.006). Surgical and oncologic outcomes of LPN were similar to OPN. Minimally invasive surgery may provide better preservation of kidney function. More studies, especially those involving robotic surgery, are necessary to confirm our findings.

Functional, oncological outcomes and safety of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy versus open partial nephrectomy in localized renal cell carcinoma patients with high anatomical complexity.

Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the main treatment strategy for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, for RCC with high anatomical complexity, PN remains a challenge for urologists. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the functional oncological outcomes and safety of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) versus open partial nephrectomy (OPN) in localized RCC patients with highly anatomical complexity (R.E.N.A.L. score ≥ 10). We retrospectively studied 575 patients who underwent PN at our center between January 2007 and December 2017. After propensity score-matching (PSM), 137 patients treated with LPN and 54 patients treated with OPN were balanced into 97 and 44 pairs. Patient demographics, and extensive perioperative and prognostic data were recorded and compared. In the matched group, the OPN group had significantly less eGFR loss than the LPN group (2.57ml/min/1.73 m2 vs. 31.59ml/min/1.73 m2, P < 0.001). The recurrence-free survival (P = 0.287), overall survival (P = 0.296), cancer-specific survival (P = 0.664), and cardiocerebrovascular disease-specific survival (P = 0.341) were equivalent between groups. The rates of minor (P = 0.621) and major (P = 0.647) complications were also similar between groups. This PSM cohort study showed that OPN resulted in better renal function preservation than LPN in localized RCC patients with high anatomical complexity, and had comparable oncological and safety outcomes after long-term follow-up. These findings may help improve clinical decision-making for localized RCC patients with high anatomical complexity.

The Impact of Postoperative Renal Function Recovery after Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Background and objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the association between warm ischemic time (WIT) and postoperative renal function using Trifecta achievement in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who underwent robotic (RAPN) or laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study of patients with RCC who underwent RAPN (RAPN group) or LPN (LPN group) at three institutions in Japan between March 2012 and October 2021. The primary endpoints were the rate of trifecta achievement in both surgical techniques and the association between WIT and recovery of postoperative renal function surgical outcomes. Results: The rate of trifecta achievement was significantly lower in patients with LPN than in those with RAPN (p < 0.001). WIT ≥ 25 min were 18 patients (18%) in the RAPN group and 89 (52.7%) in the LPN group. The postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was almost the same. However, 13 patients (7.7%) had a decreased in eGFR ≥ 15% at 3 months after LPN compared with the preoperative eGFR. Conclusions: The rate of trifecta achievement in the RAPN group was significantly higher than that in the LPN group. However, eGFR was identified as relatively better preserved after PN in both groups.

Trifecta and Pentafecta Outcomes in Laparoscopic and Robotic Nephron-Sparing Surgery for Highly Complex Renal Tumors: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis.

Purpose: To compare the trifecta and pentafecta outcomes of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) in highly complex renal tumors (RENAL nephrometry score ≥10) using a matched cohort analysis. Methods: Patients undergoing LPN or RPN for renal tumors with RENAL score ≥10 between January 2014 and December 2019 were matched using 1:2 propensity score match analysis based on age, body mass index, gender, laterality of tumor, RENAL score, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score. The two groups were compared for trifecta and pentafecta outcomes. Results: Thirty patients undergoing LPN (Group A) were matched with 60 patients undergoing RPN (Group B). The mean age (standard deviation) was 53.7 (12.9) years. The median (interquartile range) RENAL score was 10 (10-11). In comparison, the mean warm ischemia time in Group A was significantly longer than that in Group B (26.2 vs 23.0 minutes, p = 0.013). The overall complication rate was 36.7% in Group A as compared with 20% in Group B (p = 0.440). The trifecta outcomes could be achieved in 11 patients (36.7%) in Group A compared with 40 patients (66.7%) in Group B (p = 0.012). Moreover, 10 patients (33.3%) in Group A and 28 patients (46.7%) in Group B achieved pentafecta outcomes (p = 0.227). Conclusions: In a matched cohort of patients undergoing nephron-sparing surgery for highly complex renal tumors (RENAL score ≥10), the robotic approach offers a superior advantage in the achievement of trifecta outcomes as compared with the laparoscopic approach. However, both LPN and RPN can achieve similar pentafecta outcomes.

Radiofrequency ablation using real-time ultrasonography-computed tomography fusion imaging improves treatment outcomes for T1a renal cell carcinoma: Comparison with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.

PurposeTo determine whether real-time ultrasonography–computed tomography (US-CT) fusion imaging can improve technical feasibility versus B-mode US and provide comparable outcomes of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for T1a renal cell carcinoma (RCC) compared with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN).Materials and MethodsBetween June 2013 and August 2016, biopsy- or pathologically confirmed stage T1a RCCs were retrospectively reviewed. Of these, 39 cases were included in the RFA group, and 46 cases were included in the LPN group. In the RFA group, we evaluated tumor visibility and technical feasibility before RFA on a four-point scale on B-mode US and US-CT fusion images. After RFA, hospital days, creatinine value, complications, and disease-free survival rate were compared between the two groups. All results were analyzed by use of the Mann–Whitney U-test and Kaplan–Meier method.ResultsCompared with B-mode US alone, real-time US-CT fusion significantly improved the tumor visibility score and overall mean technical feasibility grade (p<0.001). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 97.4% and 97.8% in the RFA and LPN groups, respectively, and there was no statistically significant difference between groups (p=0.1). Mean periprocedural creatinine levels were significantly lower in the RFA group than in the LPN group. The number of hospital days was shorter in the RFA group. Minor complications were present in 5.1% of the RFA group and 13.0% of the LPN group, with no major complications.ConclusionsUS-CT fusion-image-guided RFA improved tumor visibility scores and overall mean technical validity and resulted in a comparable disease-free survival rate to LPN.

Renal Functional and Perioperative Outcomes of Retroperitoneal Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy with Segmental Renal Artery Clamping.

Background: Retroperitoneal approach and segmental renal artery clamping in partial nephrectomy are techniques that facilitate postoperative recovery and renal function preservation. This study aimed to compare the renal function preservation and perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) with these techniques. Materials and Methods: Clinical parameters of 43 patients who had undergone retroperitoneal RAPN from March 2017 to December 2019 were retrospectively collected and compared with those of 52 patients who had undergone retroperitoneal LPN at the same period in our institution. Differences in operating time, warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss, complications, postoperative hospital stay, as well as renal function loss were compared between the two groups. Results: Background characteristics between RAPN and LPN groups such as age, gender, BMI, and tumor characteristics were comparable. All RAPNs and LPNs were successfully completed without conversion to open surgery or nephrectomy. No significant difference in operating time, estimated blood loss, complications, and postoperative hospital stay was observed between RAPN and LPN groups. The warm ischemia time in RAPN group was slightly shorter than that of LPN groups (P = .054). Compared with the LPN group, the RAPN group was significantly associated with less glomerular filtration rate reduction and renal volume loss rate (P = .042 and P = .013, respectively). Conclusions: The perioperative outcomes were comparable between the two groups. However, compared with LPN, RAPN had superiority in preserving renal function in our series.

PD64-01 PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED TRIAL COMPARING OPEN TO LAPAROSCOPIC PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY (NCT01809119)

You have accessJournal of UrologyKidney Cancer: Localized: Surgical Therapy VI (PD64)1 Sep 2021PD64-01 PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED TRIAL COMPARING OPEN TO LAPAROSCOPIC PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY (NCT01809119) Guilherme Sawczyn, Giuliano Guglielmetti, Gilberto Rodrigues, Leonardo Cardilli, Mauricio Cordeiro, Luis Neves, Jose Pontes, Arnaldo Fazoli, Rafael Coelho, Miguel Srougi, and William Nahas Guilherme SawczynGuilherme Sawczyn More articles by this author , Giuliano GuglielmettiGiuliano Guglielmetti More articles by this author , Gilberto RodriguesGilberto Rodrigues More articles by this author , Leonardo CardilliLeonardo Cardilli More articles by this author , Mauricio CordeiroMauricio Cordeiro More articles by this author , Luis NevesLuis Neves More articles by this author , Jose PontesJose Pontes More articles by this author , Arnaldo FazoliArnaldo Fazoli More articles by this author , Rafael CoelhoRafael Coelho More articles by this author , Miguel SrougiMiguel Srougi More articles by this author , and William NahasWilliam Nahas More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002108.01AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Partial nephrectomy is the standard treatment for renal tumors smaller than 7 cm. Recently, we observed a trend toward minimally invasive surgery for partial nephrectomy. However, there is no robust data that could favor its use over open techniques. This is the first randomized controlled trial comparing surgical complications, functional and oncological outcomes in patients undergoing open partial nephrectomy (OPN) or laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). METHODS: From 2012 to 2020, 208 patients were randomized and assigned to either OPN or LPN for treatment of renal tumors smaller than 7 cm. Exclusion criteria included multiple tumors, solitary kidney, glomerular rate filtration (GFR) lower than 30 ml/min/1,73m2, any contraindication to open or laparoscopic surgery. Intraoperative data, functional outcomes, oncological outcomes and complications were evaluated. GFR was measured with 51Cr-EDTA and estimated GFR realized before, at 3 and 12 months after surgery. Unexpected events up to 3 months after surgery were considered surgical complications and classified following Clavien-Dindo Grading System. RESULTS: In the period, 28 patients ended up being excluded after randomization and 180 were included (84 for LPN arm and 96 for OPN arm) in the intention-to-treat analysis. Operative data showed no difference regarding operative time, warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss or transfusions. Zero ischemia was more frequent for OPN (35,4% vs 15,5%, p=0,02). No difference in hospital stay, 30 or 90-days complications were noted between groups. OPN had more abdominal wall complications (31.2% vs 13.1%). Regarding oncological outcomes, no difference was noted for positive margins, recurrence or overall survival. However, LPN group had less relative average kidney function reduction in 3 months (-5.2% vs -10%, p= 0.04) and 12 months after surgery (-0.8% vs -6.3%, p = 0.02), and a lower rate of downstage on the CKD classification in 12 months (14,1% vs 32,6%, p = 0.006) (Table 1). CONCLUSIONS: LPN has similar results to OPN regarding intraoperative data, complications and oncological outcomes. Minimally invasive partial nephrectomy appears to provide better kidney function preservation and might be the preferable surgical approach in a tertiary center with experienced and well trained surgeons. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e1143-e1143 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Guilherme Sawczyn More articles by this author Giuliano Guglielmetti More articles by this author Gilberto Rodrigues More articles by this author Leonardo Cardilli More articles by this author Mauricio Cordeiro More articles by this author Luis Neves More articles by this author Jose Pontes More articles by this author Arnaldo Fazoli More articles by this author Rafael Coelho More articles by this author Miguel Srougi More articles by this author William Nahas More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...

Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for Giant Sporadic Renal Angiomyolipomas of ≥7 cm: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Background To compare the perioperative and functional outcomes between robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) for giant sporadic renal angiomyolipomas (AMLs) of ≥7 cm. Materials and Methods Patients with sporadic renal AMLs of ≥7 cm who underwent RAPN or LPN in the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University between 2015 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching (1 : 1) was performed to adjust for potential baseline confounders. Perioperative and functional outcomes of the RAPN and LPN groups were collected and compared. Result After propensity score matching, no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics were found between the groups (41 vs. 41). Within the matched cohort, the warm ischemia time (WIT) in the RAPN group was significantly shorter than that in the LPN group (21 vs. 27 min, p < 0.001). In addition, the RAPN group was associated with improved postoperative renal function (72.8 vs. 69.8 mL/min/1.73 m2, p=0.045). WIT and preoperative renal function are independent predictors of renal function at 6 months postoperatively, and renal score and operation method are independent predictors of WIT. Conclusion RAPN and LPN are safe and feasible minimally invasive treatments for sporadic giant renal AMLs, but RAPN is associated with shorter WIT and better postoperative renal functional preservation. WIT and preoperative renal function are independent predictors of renal function at 6 months postoperatively, while the RENAL score and surgical method are independent risk factors to WIT. For giant and complex renal AMLs, RAPN is the first choice when condition permits.

Impact of Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy and Open Partial Nephrectomy on Outcomes of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Objective: To analyze the impact of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN) on outcomes of complex clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).Methods: A total of 132 high-complex ccRCC patients with a Radius Exophytic Nearness Anterior Location (R.E.N.A.L) score ≥7 enrolled in our hospital between January 2018 and June 2020 were matched and assigned to an LPN group (given LPN treatment) and an OPN group (given OPN treatment), with 66 cases in each group. Two weeks and 3 months after the operation, the renal indexes, inflammatory factors, basic perioperative conditions, and incidence of complications were compared.Results: Two weeks after the operation, the levels of SCr and CysC were elevated, with higher levels observed in the LPN group (all P < 0.05), and the eGFR levels were reduced, with a lower result in the LPN group. Three months after the operation, the two groups observed decreased levels of SCr and CysC, and an increased level of eGFR; moreover, the decreased SCr and CysC levels were still higher, and the increased eGFR was lower than those before the operation (P < 0.05). The levels of CRP and TNF-α in the two groups increased after the operation, with a lower outcome in the LPN group (P < 0.05). Moreover, the LPN group had less intraoperative blood loss and shorter postoperative length of hospital stay but longer blocking time compared to the OPN group (P < 0.05). Patients in the LPN group were recorded with a lower complication incidence compared with the OPN group (3.03 vs. 15.15%, P < 0.05).Conclusion: Both LPN and OPN enjoy significant efficacy in the treatment of complex ccRCC and effectively protect renal function. Moreover, LPN is a more acceptable option for complex ccRCC due to its numerous benefits in postoperative stress response, complications, recovery. which is worthy of promotion with safety and feasibility.

Comparison of parenchymal volume loss assessed by three-dimensional computed tomography volumetry and renal functional recovery between conventional and robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.

We retrospectively investigated if robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RAPN) contributes to a decrease in resected parenchymal volume (RPV), an increase in postoperative parenchymal volume (PPV), and an improvement of postoperative renal function when compared with conventional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) using a three-dimensional image analysis system. Patients who underwent LPN (n=37) and RAPN (n=66) from November 2013 to November 2018 were included in this study. All patients had a tumor diameter of 4cm or less. Patients with an anatomical or functional single kidney were excluded. RPV and PPV were measured using SYNAPSE VINCENT®. The surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups. Warm ischemic time in the RAPN group was significantly shorter than that in the LPN group (p < 0.001). The ratio of RPV to tumor volume (RPV/TV) in the RAPN group was significantly lower than that in the LPN group (p = 0.016). PPV in the RAPN group was significantly higher than that in the LPN group (p = 0.049). The decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate in the RAPN group was significantly lower than that in the LPN group on days 1, 7, 30, 90, and 180 after surgery. Postoperative renal function in the RAPN group was significantly better than that in the LPN group in both the short and long term. In addition to a short warm ischemia time, the decreased RPV/TV and increased PPV may have contributed to the improvement of postoperative renal function.

Laparoskopik parsiyel nefrektomi erken dönem deneyiminin, açık parsiyel nefrektomi ile klinik, onkolojik ve renal fonksiyonlar açısından karşılaştırılması

Objective: Although laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) is minimally invasive, it is also a technically challenging procedure. Currently, open partial nephrectomy (OPN) remains the only alternative in many centers for T1 kidney tumors. We reported our initial experience of LPN compared to OPN regarding clinical, oncological findings and renal functions. Material and Methods: Between 2004-2013, 81 patients who underwent OPN (n=55) or LPN (n=26) for clinically T1 renal tumors were included. Perioperative and postoperative data were compared, retrospectively. Follow-up times for OPN and LPN groups were 72.9± 41.1 and 47.6± 32.4 months, respectively (p&lt;0.05). Results: The mean tumor size and RENAL nephrometry scores were similar for both groups. Zero-ischemia was performed in all of the LPN and 15% of the OPN procedures. Estimated blood loss and perioperative transfusion rates were higher in OPN group. Complications including grade &lt; 3 and ≥ 3 did not differ significantly between the groups. The decrease in creatinine-clearance at 6th month was statistically significant in OPN group, while stable in LPN. Positive surgical margin rates were 6.6% for OPN and 17.6% for LPN, p=0.19. One patient in LPN developed local recurrence and underwent nephrectomy. In OPN group,one local recurrence and one distant metastasis were observed in two independent patients. Both patients recieved tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Conclusion: Although LPN is accepted as a technically challenging procedure, LPN provided comparable outcomes to OPN including clinical, oncological findings and renal functions, even in the early learning phase. Zero-ischemia technique for LPN was feasible and safe with favorable perioperative and renal functional outcomes. Keywords: laparoscopy; learning curve; partial nephrectomy; renal cancer; surgical margins; zero-ischemia.

Comparative Outcomes and Predictive Assessment of Trifecta in Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy Cases with Renal Cell Carcinoma: A 10-Year Experience at Ramathibodi Hospital.

PurposeTo compare perioperative and trifecta outcomes of open partial nephrectomy (OPN), laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN), and robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RPN) in patients with small renal mass at Ramathibodi Hospital, and to determine predictive factors in connection with trifecta.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 141 patients who underwent partial nephrectomy by eight experienced surgeons from January 2009 to December 2018. Baseline preoperative characteristics, postoperative and trifecta outcomes of the three treatment modalities were compared and analyzed. Univariate analysis was performed to determine predictive factors for trifecta achievement.ResultsA total of 70 patients had complete data available. Eighteen OPN, 11 LPN and 41 RPN cases were identified and reviewed. All preoperative and perioperative parameters were similar, except for operative time, which was significantly shorter in the OPN group compared with those undergoing LPN and RPN (135 vs 189 and 225 min, respectively; p-value = 0.001). Of these 70 patients, 59 were deemed eligible for and included in trifecta analysis, which revealed similar trifecta outcomes (64.29%, 45.45%, and 64.71% in the OPN, LPN, and RPN groups, respectively; p-value = 0.388). Univariate analysis showed that length of hospital stay was a negative associated factor for trifecta achievement (p-value = 0.007, 95% CI = 0.619 (0.44–0.88)).ConclusionAlthough OPN displayed the shortest operative time, the trifecta achievement rate was not significantly different among the three groups. The sole parameter, which was negatively associated with trifecta outcome achievement, was the length of hospital stay.

Impact of three-dimensional vision in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors.

To compare three-dimensional (3D) with standard two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) with respect to intra- and postoperative outcomes. Data from 112 patients who underwent transperitoneal LPN from 2012 to 2014 by a single experienced surgeon were collected. Sixty patients (group 1) underwent conventional 2D LPN and 52 patients (group 2) 3D LPN. Perioperative patient, procedure, and tumor data were recorded. The follow-up period was 1-5 years. The two groups had similar patient age (p=0.834) and body mass index (p=0.141). The total laparoscopy time (LT) was shorter in group 2 (119.0 vs. 106.0 min; p=0.009). Warm ischemia times (WITs) were also shorter in group 2 (11.5 vs. 10.0 min; p=0.032). The estimated blood loss (EBL) (350.0 vs. 250.0 mL; p<0.001) and hemoglobin (Hb) decrease (1.55 vs. 1.35 g/dL; p=0.536) were lower in the 3D LPN group. Creatinine (0 vs. 0 g/dL; p=0.610) increase and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decrease (0 vs. 0 mL/min/1.73 m2; p=0.553) did not demonstrate statistically significant differences. Duration of hospitalization (7 vs. 7 days; p=0.099) and complication rates (p=0.559) were similar between the two groups. The new-generation 3D laparoscope has a great impact on significant LPN intraoperative parameters, mainly LT, WIT, and EBL. Hb decrease is also in favor of 3D vision, although not dramatically altered. Therefore, 3D LPN appears to be superior to conventional 2D LPNs.

Comparison of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for Renal Hilar Tumors: Results from a Tertiary Referral Center

Objective: To compare perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) for renal hilar tumors. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent minimally invasive partial nephrectomy for renal hilar tumors at our institution between January 2014 and August 2018. The entire cohort was divided into two groups according to surgical approach: RAPN and LPN group. Perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes of the two groups were collected and compared. Results: A total of 116 patients with renal hilar tumors were identified, including 52 patients who underwent RAPN and 64 patients who underwent LPN, respectively. Demographic baseline characteristics were similar in two groups. There were no differences between the RAPN and LPN groups for operative time, transfusion rate, conversion rate, surgical margin, perioperative complication, and hospital stay. Compared with the LPN group, the RAPN group was associated with significant less estimated blood loss (100 vs 150 mL; p < 0.001), shorter warm ischemia time (20.3 vs 24.5 minutes; p = 0.001), and higher direct cost (p < 0.001). Percentage of estimated glomerular filtration rate change at 6 months after surgery was lower in RAPN group than LPN group (10.4% vs 15.2%; p = 0.020). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of oncologic outcomes. Conclusions: For hilar tumors, both RAPN and LPN were safe and feasible surgical treatments. RAPN might be associated with superior perioperative outcomes (less estimated blood loss and shorter warm ischemia time) and better postoperative renal functional preservation. RAPN might be the preferred option when condition permits for renal hilar tumors.

Functional and oncological outcome of percutaneous cryoablation versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for clinical T1 renal tumors: A propensity score-matched analysis

PurposeTo evaluate the clinical trifecta of percutaneous cryoablation (PCA) vs. laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) for cT1 renal tumors. Patients and methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the records of patients who had undergone 2 types of nephron sparing surgeries (NSS) PCA or LPN for cT1 renal tumors between November 2011 and December 2019. The cohorts were matched by one-to-one propensity scores based on patient demographics, renal function, and tumor complexity. Perioperative and oncological outcomes and preservation of renal function following surgery were compared. ResultsAfter matching, a total of 180 patients who had undergone NSS for de novo renal tumors were evaluable: 90 for PCA and 90 for LPN. No statistically significant differences were noted among the measured baseline characteristics in the propensity score-matched cohorts. Overall perioperative complication rates were 5.5% in the PCA and 11.1% in the LPN groups (P = 0.28). The rate of eGFR preservation 1 to 3 months after surgery was significantly higher for PCA than for LPN (92.8 ± 11.5% vs. 88.5 ± 14.6%, P = 0.03). Median follow-up was 33 months for PCA and 18 months for LPN (P < 0.001). Three residual and 4 recurrent tumors were later diagnosed in the PCA group and 1 recurrent tumor in the LPN group. The 5-year local recurrence-free survival was lower for PCA than LPN (90.2% vs. 98.5%, P = 0.36). The 5-year metastasis-free survival rate was similar in both groups (98.4% vs. 100%, P = 0.38). The 5-year overall and cancer-specific survival rates were comparable in both groups (91.7% vs. 98.9%, P = 0.53, and 95% vs. 100%, P = 0.55, respectively). ConclusionsClinical T1 RCC patients are better treated with LPN if technically possible. Though PCA had a higher local recurrence rate, medium-term local control was not inferior to LPN. Additionally, PCA patients tended to retain renal function without severe complications. PCA appears to be a reasonable option for patients with high comorbidity at presentation.

Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy Vs Conventional Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: Functional and Surgical Outcomes of a Prospective Single Surgeon Randomized Study.

Background: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) are commonly used techniques for treating small renal masses. Regarding renal function (RF) preservation, no superiority of one technique over the other has yet been definitely demonstrated. Objective: To compare functional and surgical outcomes of LPN and RAPN. Patients and Methods: Between 2015 and 2019, we prospectively randomized 115 patients with cT1-T2 renal masses to LPN in total ischemia or RAPN in selective ischemia. Primary endpoint was RF preservation, assessed by renal scintigraphy (RS). RS assessments were performed preoperatively and at 6 months follow-up. Secondary endpoints included clinical, histopathologic, and surgical outcomes. Results: One hundred eight patients were included in the final analysis. Patient and tumor characteristics were comparable. No significant difference in RS values after 6 months was observed between both groups. Median (interquartile range) RF change after 6 months was -18.0% (-26.5 to -11.0) in LPN group and -20.0 (-33.2 to -12.0) in RAPN group (p = 0.3). Mean (standard deviation [SD]) warm ischemia time was 21.1 (6.1) minutes in LPN group and 19.6 (7.7) minutes in RAPN group (p = 0.2). No positive surgical margins (PSMs) occurred in the LPN group, whereas RAPN group had PSM in 4.9% (n = 3); p = 0.099. Renal volume loss after 6 months was 27.5% (22.7-45.7) in the LPN group vs 37.5 (13.7-54.2) in the RAPN group (p = 0.5). Mean operative times were lower in the LPN group (192.3 minutes [SD 44.5] vs 230.2 minutes [SD 59.6], p = 0.001). More complications occurred in the LPN group (31% vs 21%, p = 0.075). Transfusion rates were 15% for LPN and 11% for RAPN. Conclusions: In terms of preserving RF, LPN in total ischemia and RAPN in selective ischemia are comparable. In most patients, RF decrease of the affected kidney after PN seems to not exceed 25%, regardless of the surgical approach.