Radical Nephrectomy Sparing Research Articles

V11-10 ROBOTIC RETROPERITONEAL NEPHROURETECTOMY FOR UPPER TRACT UROTHELIAL CARCINOMA

You have accessJournal of UrologyRenal Oncology II (V11)1 Sep 2021V11-10 ROBOTIC RETROPERITONEAL NEPHROURETECTOMY FOR UPPER TRACT UROTHELIAL CARCINOMA Zachary McDowell, and James Porter Zachary McDowellZachary McDowell More articles by this author , and James PorterJames Porter More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002073.10AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Nephroureterectomy is the standard of care for high grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) or low grade UTUC when nephron-sparing surgery is not possible, and a retroperitoneal approach can be advantageous in the setting of previous abdominal surgeries. The patient in this case is a 67 year old female that was found to have high grade urothelial carcinoma of the left renal pelvis. She underwent 3 cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy, and subsequent nephroureterectomy. A retroperitoneal approach was chosen for this patient because she had a history of multiple abdominal surgeries including exploratory laparotomy. This video will demonstrate the retroperitoneal approach for robotic nephroureterectomy as definitive surgical management of this patient's high grade UTUC. METHODS: The surgery was performed using the daVinci Xi robot. The patient was placed in full flank position and 4 robotic ports were placed in a line midway between the iliac crest and the 12th rib. A 12mm high-flow insufflator assistant port was placed near the anterior superior iliac spine. The retroperitoneal space was developed using balloon dilation. The initial step was mobilization of the ureter. Once the ureteral dissection was carried distally to the point of decreased range of motion for the robotic arms, the arms were undocked, the boom rotated 180 degrees, and the direction of dissection was into the pelvis. An additional 5mm assistant port was placed cephalad to the robotic ports near the 11th rib. After completion of the ureteral and bladder cuff dissection the robot was redocked and returned to the initial arm configuration. We then proceed to adrenal sparing radical nephrectomy with retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. RESULTS: We have experience with 3 robotic retroperitoneal nephroureterectomies. All patients had high grade transitional cell carcinoma of the kidney as the indication for surgery, and all had history of significant abdominal surgery. The mean age was 70 years, mean operative time was 251 mins, mean estimated blood loss was 42 cc, mean lymph nodes removed was 13, and mean length of stay of 2 days. There were no complications, readmissions, and recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: The retroperitoneal approach is a safe and effective technique for robotic assisted nephroureterectomy. This approach allows complete access to the kidney, ureter and bladder cuff and avoids adhesions in patients with prior abdominal surgery. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e860-e861 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Zachary McDowell More articles by this author James Porter More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...

Comparative effectiveness of adrenal sparing radical nephrectomy and non-adrenal sparing radical nephrectomy in clear cell renal cell carcinoma: Observational study of survival outcomes.

We compare the survival outcomes of patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with adrenal sparing radical nephrectomy (ASRN) and non-adrenal sparing radical nephrectomy (NASRN). We conducted an observational study based on a composite patient population from two university teaching hospitals who underwent RN for RCC between January 2000 and December 2012. Only patients with pathologically confirmed RCC were included. We excluded patients undergoing cytoreductive nephrectomy, with loco-regional lymph node involvement. In total, 579 patients (ASRN = 380 and NASRN = 199) met our study criteria. Patients were categorized by risk groups (all stage, early stage and locally advanced RCC). Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were analyzed for risk groups. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards regression. The median follow-up was 41 months (range: 12-157). There were significant benefits in OS (ASRN 79.5% vs. NASRN 63.3%; p = 0.001) and CSS (84.3% vs. 74.9%; p = 0.001), with any differences favouring ASRN in all stage. On multivariate analysis, there was a trend towards worse OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.759, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.943-2.309, p = 0.089) and CSS (HR 1.797, 95% CI 0.967-3.337, p = 0.064) in patients with NASRN (although not statistically significant). Of these patients, only 11 (1.9%) had adrenal involvement. The inherent limitations in our study include the impracticality of conducting a prospective randomized trial in this scenario. Our observational study with a 13-year follow-up suggests ASRN leads to better survival than NASRN. ASRN should be considered the gold standard in treating patients with RCC, unless it is contraindicated.

818 Comparative effectiveness of adrenal sparing radical nephrectomy and non-adrenal sparing radical nephrectomy in clear cell renal cell carcinoma: Observational study of survival outcomes

818 Comparative effectiveness of adrenal sparing radical nephrectomy and non-adrenal sparing radical nephrectomy in clear cell renal cell carcinoma: Observational study of survival outcomes

Do We Continue to Unnecessarily Perform Ipsilateral Adrenalectomy at the Time of Radical Nephrectomy? A Population Based Study

Since the mid 1990s evidence has supported ipsilateral adrenal gland sparing radical nephrectomy unless the gland appears involved on imaging or the primary tumor is large and located in the upper pole. However, it is unclear whether this shift in surgical practice has been adopted at the population level. Using the Ontario Cancer Registry we identified 5,135 patients in the province of Ontario who underwent radical nephrectomy between 1995 and 2004. Ipsilateral adrenalectomy and tumor involvement of the adrenal gland were ascertained from pathology reports. Further variables analyzed included age, gender, pathology, surgeon year of graduation, academic status of hospital/surgeon, hospital and surgeon volume, and year of surgery. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess outcomes. The overall rate of adrenal gland involvement with cancer was 1.4%. The adrenal was involved in 3.2% of tumors larger than 7 cm vs only 0.89% of tumors 4 to 7 cm and 0.63% of tumors smaller than 4 cm. Factors predictive of adrenal involvement on multivariable analysis were tumor size greater than 7 cm and fat invasion. The overall adrenalectomy rate was 40.1%, which decreased slightly over time (40.6% in 1995 vs 34.8% in 2004). Variables predictive of adrenal removal on multivariable analysis included tumor size greater than 7 cm, presence of venous thrombus, upper pole location, higher hospital volume, and academic status of hospital or surgeon. Despite evidence to support preservation of the ipsilateral adrenal gland during radical nephrectomy, the rate of adrenalectomy decreased only slightly in 10 years. Adrenalectomy remains overused in populations that are unlikely to benefit from the procedure.