Transperitoneal Versus Retroperitoneal Single-port Robotic-assisted Partial Nephrectomy: An Analysis from the Single Port Advanced Research Consortium.

Kidney cancer Minimal invasive surgery Partial nephrectomy Retroperitoneal Robotic Single port

Journal

European urology focus
ISSN: 2405-4569
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Focus
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101665661

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
30 Jun 2023
Historique:
received: 27 02 2023
revised: 20 05 2023
accepted: 09 06 2023
medline: 3 7 2023
pubmed: 3 7 2023
entrez: 2 7 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

In the surgical management of kidney tumors, such as in multiport technology, single-port (SP) robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) can be performed using the transperitoneal (TP) or retroperitoneal (RP) approach. However, there is a dearth of literature on the efficacy and safety of either approach for SP RAPN. To compare the peri- and postoperative outcomes of the TP and RP approaches for SP RAPN. This is a retrospective cohort study using data from the Single Port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC) database of five institutions. All patients underwent SP RAPN for a renal mass between 2019 and 2022. TP versus RP SP RAPN. Baseline characteristics, and peri- and postoperative outcomes were compared between both the approaches using χ A total of 219 patients (121 [55.25%] TP, 98 [44.75%] RP) were included in the study. Of them, 115 (51.51%) were male, and the mean age was 60 ± 11 yr. RP had a significantly higher proportion of posterior tumors (54 [55.10%] RP vs 28 [23.14%] TP, p < 0.001), while other baseline characteristics were comparable between both the approaches. There was no statistically significant difference in ischemia time (18 ± 9 vs 18 ± 11 min, p = 0.898), operative time (147 ± 67 vs 146 ± 70 min, p = 0.925), estimated blood loss (p = 0.167), length of stay (1.06 ± 2.25 vs 1.33 ± 1.05 d, p = 0.270), overall complications (5 [5.10%] vs 7 [5.79%]), and major complication rate (2 [2.04%] vs 2 [1.65%], p = 1.000). No difference was observed in positive surgical margin rate (p = 0.472) or delta eGFR at median 6-mo follow-up (p = 0.273). Limitations include retrospective design and no long-term follow-up. With proper patient selection based on patient and tumor characteristics, surgeons can opt for either the TP or the RP approach for SP RAPN, and maintain satisfactory outcomes. The use of a single port (SP) is a novel technology for performing robotic surgery. Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is a surgery to remove a portion of the kidney due to kidney cancer. Depending on patient characteristics and surgeons' preference, SP can be performed via two approaches for RAPN: through the abdomen or through the space behind the abdominal cavity. We compared outcomes between these two approaches for patients receiving SP RAPN, finding that they were comparable. We conclude that with proper patient selection based on patient and tumor characteristics, surgeons can opt for either the TP or the RP approach for SP RAPN, and maintain satisfactory outcomes.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
In the surgical management of kidney tumors, such as in multiport technology, single-port (SP) robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) can be performed using the transperitoneal (TP) or retroperitoneal (RP) approach. However, there is a dearth of literature on the efficacy and safety of either approach for SP RAPN.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
To compare the peri- and postoperative outcomes of the TP and RP approaches for SP RAPN.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS METHODS
This is a retrospective cohort study using data from the Single Port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC) database of five institutions. All patients underwent SP RAPN for a renal mass between 2019 and 2022.
INTERVENTION METHODS
TP versus RP SP RAPN.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS METHODS
Baseline characteristics, and peri- and postoperative outcomes were compared between both the approaches using χ
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS CONCLUSIONS
A total of 219 patients (121 [55.25%] TP, 98 [44.75%] RP) were included in the study. Of them, 115 (51.51%) were male, and the mean age was 60 ± 11 yr. RP had a significantly higher proportion of posterior tumors (54 [55.10%] RP vs 28 [23.14%] TP, p < 0.001), while other baseline characteristics were comparable between both the approaches. There was no statistically significant difference in ischemia time (18 ± 9 vs 18 ± 11 min, p = 0.898), operative time (147 ± 67 vs 146 ± 70 min, p = 0.925), estimated blood loss (p = 0.167), length of stay (1.06 ± 2.25 vs 1.33 ± 1.05 d, p = 0.270), overall complications (5 [5.10%] vs 7 [5.79%]), and major complication rate (2 [2.04%] vs 2 [1.65%], p = 1.000). No difference was observed in positive surgical margin rate (p = 0.472) or delta eGFR at median 6-mo follow-up (p = 0.273). Limitations include retrospective design and no long-term follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
With proper patient selection based on patient and tumor characteristics, surgeons can opt for either the TP or the RP approach for SP RAPN, and maintain satisfactory outcomes.
PATIENT SUMMARY RESULTS
The use of a single port (SP) is a novel technology for performing robotic surgery. Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is a surgery to remove a portion of the kidney due to kidney cancer. Depending on patient characteristics and surgeons' preference, SP can be performed via two approaches for RAPN: through the abdomen or through the space behind the abdominal cavity. We compared outcomes between these two approaches for patients receiving SP RAPN, finding that they were comparable. We conclude that with proper patient selection based on patient and tumor characteristics, surgeons can opt for either the TP or the RP approach for SP RAPN, and maintain satisfactory outcomes.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37394396
pii: S2405-4569(23)00144-X
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2023.06.004
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Jordan M Rich (JM)

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.

Kennedy E Okhawere (KE)

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.

Charles Nguyen (C)

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.

Burak Ucpinar (B)

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.

Laura Zuluaga (L)

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.

Shirin Razdan (S)

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.

Indu Saini (I)

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.

Alp Tuna Beksac (A)

Glickman Urological & Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Jennifer Nguyen (J)

Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USA.

Ruben S Calvo (RS)

Department of Urology, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA.

Mutahar Ahmed (M)

Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USA.

Reza Mehrazin (R)

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.

Ronney Abaza (R)

Central Ohio Urology Group, Columbus, OH, USA.

Michael D Stifelman (MD)

Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USA.

Jihad Kaouk (J)

Glickman Urological & Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Simone Crivellaro (S)

Department of Urology, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA.

Ketan K Badani (KK)

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: ketan.badani@mountsinai.org.

Classifications MeSH