Transperitoneal vs retroperitoneal minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: comparison of perioperative outcomes and functional follow-up in a large multi-institutional cohort (The RECORD 2 Project)

European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma: The 2025 Update

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The European Association of Urology (EAU) renal cell carcinoma (RCC) guideline panel has updated their evidence-based guidelines and recommendations for the management of RCC. Here we present a summary of the 2025 RCC guidelines updated with standardised methodology to provide reproducible evidence for the management of RCC.

METHODS

For the 2025 update, a literature search was performed covering the period from May 1, 2023 to May 1, 2024 using the Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Libraries. The data search focused on meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and retrospective or controlled comparator-arm studies. Evidence was synthesised as outlined for all EAU guidelines.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Clinical practise recommendations were updated in all chapters of the RCC guidelines on the basis of a structured literature search. The studies included were predominantly retrospective with matched or unmatched cohorts based on single- or multi-institutional data. Several prospective studies and RCTs provided data that resulted in recommendations based on higher levels of evidence. Specifically, updates include new recommendations on stereotactic body radiotherapy for localised RCC, adjuvant therapy, systemic therapy for clear-cell RCC in later lines, other subtypes, and a new chapter on hereditary RCC.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The 2025 RCC guidelines have been updated by a multidisciplinary panel of experts using methodological standards to provide a contemporary evidence base for the management of RCC.

Randomised controlled feasibility trial of retroperitoneal vs transperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: the ROPARN study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the feasibility of trial recruitment and confirm that retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RRPN) has the same oncological efficacy as transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (TRPN), with time advantages and less peri-operative morbidity, in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study was designed as a single-centre, open-label, feasibility RCT. Patients with suspected localised renal cell carcinoma referred for robotic partial nephrectomy were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either TRPN or RRPN. The primary outcomes were trial feasibility, postoperative mobility and pain perception. Secondary outcomes were intra-operative times, assessment of complications, and comparison of positive surgical margin (PSM) rates. The data on all randomised patients who underwent surgery were analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients underwent TRPN or RRPN (31 vs 30). Postoperative mobility within 24 h after surgery (RRPN: 77 vs TRPN: 71%; P = 0.613), median postoperative pain, assessed using a numeric rating scale (RRPN: 1.5 vs TRPN: 1.8; P = 0.509), and full bowel canalisation within 3 days (RRPN: 100% vs TRPN: 90%; P = 0.315) were more favourable in the RRPN group, but the difference was not statistically significant. In comparison to TRPN, RRPN was associated with shorter operating time (81 vs 105 min; P = 0.005), shorter time on the console (49 vs 73 min; P < 0.001) and shorter time from console to renal artery preparation (7.5 vs 18 min; P < 0.001). TRPN required a shorter time from skin incision to console (16 vs 12 min; P = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in tumour complexity, ischaemia time, PSM rate, blood loss or complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

We present the first data from an RCT comparing RRPN with TRPN. RRPN showed significant time benefits while being a safe alternative to TRPN, with a similar PSM rate. There was less postoperative morbidity in the RRPN group, although this was not statistically significant. These results underline that dorsolateral renal tumours should be preferably resected by RRPN. Further multicentre RCTs are necessary to confirm these results.

Comparative outcomes of retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy for cT1 and cT2 renal tumors: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Partial nephrectomy (PN) has been the main strategy for treating cT1 (≤ 7 cm) renal tumors. Previous studies have established PN's safety and effectiveness over radical nephrectomy (RN) for cT1 tumors. However, the efficacy and safety of retroperitoneal PN for larger renal tumors (> 7 cm) remained controversial. Through a size-based comparative analysis of cT1 and cT2 tumors undergoing retroperitoneal PN, we explored the impact of renal tumors larger than 7 cm on perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2017 to April 2021, we collected data from 201 patients undergoing retroperitoneal laparoscopic or robot-assisted PN. Of these, 173 (86.1%) had tumors ≤ 7 cm (Group A) and 28 (13.9%) had tumors > 7 cm (Group B). We analyzed demographics (gender, age, Body Mass Index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, preoperative hemoglobin and renal function, tumor location, operative method, RENAL score, and complexity), perioperative (operative time, warm ischemic time, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, surgical margins, complications), and functional outcomes (changes in renal function pre- and postoperatively), along with recurrence rates.

RESULTS

Mean tumor sizes in Group A and Group B were 3.67 ± 1.56 cm and 9.90 ± 2.97 cm, respectively. RENAL score analysis revealed a significant difference (7.64 vs. 9.21, P < 0.0001), attributed to the Radius and Exophytic/Endophytic property parameters. Furthermore, Group B exhibited significantly higher tumor complexity(P = 0.0009). In perioperative outcomes, Group B had a prolonged warm ischemic time (18.90 vs. 22.60 min, P = 0.0486). However, there was no significant difference in estimated blood loss and complication rates. Regarding functional outcomes, only the reduction of estimated glomerular filtration rate on postoperative day 1 was significant (-0.74 vs. -8.31, p = 0.016), with no significant differences at 3 months, 6 months, or 1 year postoperatively. For eGFR changes over time in Group B, declines at postoperative month 3 and postoperative year 1 were noted.

CONCLUSION

Despite higher preoperative RENAL scores and prolonged perioperative warm ischemic time, retroperitoneal PN for tumors > 7 cm demonstrated acceptable functional, oncological, and perioperative outcomes, with no observed gastrointestinal complications. Our findings support its feasibility as a treatment option for patients with > 7 cm or intermediate/high complexity renal tumors.

Retroperitoneal single port vs. transperitoneal multiport robot assisted partial nephrectomy in patients with highly hostile abdomen: comparative analysis from a tertiary care center

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to explore perioperative and functional outcomes in a cohort of patients with highly hostile abdomens treated with retroperitoneal (RP) single port vs transperitoneal multiport robot assisted partial nephrectomy.

METHODS

Clinical and surgical data of all consecutive patients treated with transperitoneal multiport and RP single-port robot assisted partial nephrectomy between March 2019 and January 2024 were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. The presence of "hostile abdomen" was defined as personal history of at least one major abdominal surgery. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess independent predictors of Trifecta achievement.

RESULTS

Overall, clinical and surgical data of 247 consecutive patients were prospectively collected, of these 71 met the inclusions criteria and were retrospectively analyzed. No differences emerged in baseline features. Previous surgery proximity to the site of partial nephrectomy was found comparable among groups (P=0.21). RP single port group showed a significantly lower operative time (171 vs. 235 min, P=0.02) and estimated blood loss (70 vs. 100 cc, P=0.04) while open conversion was significantly higher (9.3%) in case of multiport treatment (P=0.001). A significative lower rate of major postoperative complications (7.1% vs. 16.3%, P=0.03) as well as 90-days readmissions (P=0.04) was found in case of single port RP procedures. Adjusting for age, BMI and CCI, RP single port approach was confirmed as independent predictor of Trifecta achievement (OR 1.62 CI 1.18-2.35 P=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients treated with RAPN with highly hostile abdomens, the adoption of a single port RP approach reduces the major complication rate as compared to the multiport transperitoneal approach also improving EBL, operative time, LOS and pain management.

Comparison of the results of laparoscopic retroperitoneal and transperitoneal partial nephrectomy in anterior kidney tumors: a two-center matched-pair analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the intraoperative, postoperative and pathologic results of transperitoneal (TLPN) and retroperitoneal (RLPN) laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for anterior renal tumors.

METHODS

Data of the 401 patients in two different centers, who had LPN operations due to anteriorly placed renal tumor with RLPN and TLPN approaches, were analyzed retrospectively. Demographic, tumor characteristics, intraoperative, postoperative and pathologic data of all patients were evaluated. 74 TLPN cases were matched with 74 RLPN cases with respect to age, body mass index, tumor size and PADUA nephrometry score (matched 1:1). The groups were compared according to the parameters above.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar in terms of clinical data and tumor characteristics, including matching parameters. The median operative time was similar between two groups (115 vs. 110 min, p = 0.235; 20 vs. 22.5 min, p = 0.283 in the RLPN group than in the TLPN group, respectively). Intraoperative complication rates were similar between the groups (6.8% in RLPN group vs. 10.8% in TLPN group, p = 0.384). The median amount of bleeding in the TLPN group was statistically higher than in the RLPN group (150 vs. 50 cc, p < 0.001). There were no difference in terms of postoperative complication rates and the rate of residual tumor presence (9.5% in RLPN group vs. 12.2% in TLPN group, p = 0.144; 6.8% in the RLPN group, 5.4% in the TLPN group, p = 0.731,respectively).

CONCLUSION

In high-volume centers, both transperitoneal and retroperitoneal procedures yield comparably favourable outcomes for anterior kidney tumors. Thus, tumor location should not be regarded as a deterrent to considering RLPN.

Adoption of Single-Port Robotic Partial Nephrectomy Increases Utilization of the Retroperitoneal Approach: A Report from the Single-Port Advanced Research Consortium

Introduction: Retroperitoneal approach for robotic partial nephrectomy (PN) has been shown to offer shorter operative times and hospital stays without differences in complication rates compared with the transperitoneal approach. The single-port (SP) system may be better suited than multiport (MP) for challenges with the retroperitoneal approach such as narrow access geometry. We evaluated if the adoption of SP PN increased the utilization of retroperitoneal approach. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed an IRB-approved multi-institutional database of all PN from 2013 to 2023. The date of the first SP PN split the cohorts before and after SP adoption. The percentage of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approach cases overall and for SP and MP was determined before and after adoption. Joinpoint analysis assessed changes in rates of the retroperitoneal approach. Logistic regression compared patient and tumor characteristics with retroperitoneal approach PN before and after adoption of SP. Results: Overall 1959 patients were evaluated, of which 654 were performed prior versus 1305 after SP adoption. There was an increased percentage of retroperitoneal approach after adoption, with 7.3% (48/654) before compared with 24.8% (324/1305) after adoption. The percentage of the retroperitoneal approach for SP PN was 52.8% (134/254), increasing over time with 75% (24/32) of SP in 2023 performed with a retroperitoneal approach. Conclusion: The retroperitoneal approach was used more frequently than the transperitoneal approach in the SP cohort. The adoption of SP increased the incidence of the retroperitoneal approach.

Predictors of delayed hospital discharge after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: the impact of single-port robotic surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate the predictors of delayed discharge for patients undergoing robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) at our Institution since the introduction of the single port (SP) robotic system.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of our prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing RAPN from September 2020 to August 2024. Patients were categorized by the postoperative day of their discharge: POD1 (single overnight stay) or POD > 1 (more than one night stay). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to test the probability of prolonged hospital stay (defined as more than one night stay) adjusting for age at surgery, surgical approach, Charlson comorbidity index, baseline hemoglobin, antiplatelet or anticoagulant medications, clinical tumor stage, and intraoperative blood transfusion.

RESULTS

Overall, 255 patients were identified for the analysis. Patients discharged on POD1 were younger (p = 0.004), reported a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index (p = 0.002), higher preoperative hemoglobin levels (p = 0.005), and smaller tumor size (p < 0.001). Higher rates of discharge on POD1 were recorded for both multiport transperitoneal (59.5 vs. 40.5%, p = 0.02) and SP retroperitoneal (81.5 vs. 18.5%, p = 0.004). Clinical tumor stage (p = 0.02) and intraoperative blood transfusion (p = 0.05) emerged as independent risk factors for POD > 1. Baseline hemoglobin emerged as a protective factor (p = 0.05) as well as SP approach (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

SP-RAPN holds potential to shorten hospitalization without hampering surgical outcomes. By maximizing the adoption of a RP approach and minimizing surgical invasiveness, SP robotic surgery allows to significantly expand the pool of RAPN patients that can be discharged after a single overnight stay.

French AFU Cancer Committee Guidelines - Update 2024-2026: Management of kidney cancer

OBJECTIVE

To update the French recommendations for the management of kidney cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted for the period from 2014 to 2024. The most relevant articles concerning the diagnosis, classification, surgical treatment, medical treatment, and follow-up of kidney cancer were selected and incorporated into the recommendations. The recommendations have been updated specifying the level of evidence (strong or weak).

RESULTS

Kidney cancer following prolonged occupational exposure to trichloroethylene should be considered an occupational disease. The reference examination for the diagnosis and staging of kidney cancer is the contrast-enhanced thoraco-abdominal CT scan. PET scans are not indicated in the staging of kidney cancer. Percutaneous biopsy is recommended in situations where its results will influence therapeutic decisions. It should be used to reduce the number of surgeries for benign tumors, particularly avoiding unnecessary radical nephrectomies. Kidney tumors should be classified according to the pTNM 2017 classification, the WHO 2022 classification, and the ISUP nucleolar grade. Metastatic kidney cancers should be classified according to IMDC criteria. Surveillance of tumors smaller than 2cm should be prioritized and can be offered regardless of patient age. Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy is the reference surgical treatment for T1 tumors. Ablative therapies and surveillance are options for elderly patients with comorbidities for tumors larger than 2cm. Stereotactic radiotherapy is an option to discuss for treating localized kidney tumors in patients not eligible for other treatments. Radical nephrectomy is the first-line treatment for locally advanced localized cancers. Pembrolizumab is recommended for patients at high risk of recurrence after surgery for localized kidney cancer. In metastatic patients, cytoreductive nephrectomy can be immediate in cases of good prognosis, delayed in cases of intermediate or poor prognosis for patients stabilized by medical treatment, or as "consolidation" in patients with complete or major partial response at metastatic sites after systemic treatment. Surgical or local treatment of metastases can be proposed for single lesions or oligometastases. Recommended first-line drugs for metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma are combinations of axitinib/pembrolizumab, nivolumab/ipilimumab, nivolumab/cabozantinib, and lenvatinib/pembrolizumab. Patients with non-clear cell metastatic kidney cancer should be presented to the CARARE Network and prioritized for inclusion in clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

These updated recommendations are a reference that will enable French and French-speaking practitioners to optimize their management of kidney cancer.

Postoperative outcomes of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy: a propensity-score matched comparison focused on patient mobilization, return to bowel function, and pain

Literature meta-analyses comparing transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approach to robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) suggested some advantages favoring retroperitoneoscopy. Unfortunately, patient-centered data about mobilization, canalization, pain, and use of painkillers remained anecdotally reported. The present analysis aimed to compare transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal RPN focusing on such outcomes. Study data including baseline variables, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes of interest were retrieved from prospectively maintained institutional database (Jan 2018-May 2023) and compared between treatment groups (transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal). Propensity score matching was performed using the STATA command psmatch2 considering age, sex, body mass index, previous abdominal surgery, RENAL score, tumor size and location, and cT stage. The logit of propensity score was used for matching, with a 1:1 nearest neighbor algorithm, without replacement (caliper of 0.001). A total of 442 patients were included in the unmatched analysis: 330 underwent transperitoneal RPN 112 retroperitoneal RPN. After propensity score, 98 patients who underwent retroperitoneal RPN were matched with 98 patients who underwent transperitoneal RPN. Matched cohorts had comparable patients' demographics and tumor features. We found similarity between the two laparoscopic accesses in all outcomes but in blood loss, which favored retroperitoneoscopic RPN (median 150 (IQR 100-300) versus 100 (IQR 0-100) ml, p = 0.03). No differences were found in terms of time to mobilization with ambulation, return to complete bowel function, postoperative pain, but higher painkillers consumption was reported after transperitoneal RPN (p < 0.004). The present study compared the transperitoneal versus the retroperitoneal approach to RPN, confirming the similarity between the two approaches in all perioperative outcomes. Based on our findings, the choice of the surgical approach to RPN may remain something that the surgeon decides.

Partial nephrectomy for renal tumors: recommendations of the Italian Society of Urology RCC working group

INTRODUCTION

Partial nephrectomy (PN) aims to remove renal tumors while preserving renal function without affecting oncological and perioperative surgical outcomes. Aim of this paper is to summarize the current evidence on PN and to provide evidence-based recommendations on indications, surgical technique, perioperative management and postoperative surveillance of PN for renal tumors in the Italian clinical and health care system context.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This review is the result of an interactive peer-reviewing process of the recent literature on PN for renal tumors carried out by an expert panel composed of members of the Italian Society of Urology (SIU) Renal Cell Carcinoma Working Group.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

PN for localized renal tumors is not inferior to radical nephrectomy in terms of survival outcomes while significantly better preserving renal function. Loss of renal function after PN is influenced by medical comorbidities/preoperative renal function and surgical variables such volume of parenchyma preserved and ischemia time. Urologists should select the clamping strategy during PN based on their experience and patient-specific factors. PN can be performed with any surgical approach based on surgeon's expertise and skills. Robotic PN has the potential to expand the minimally invasive indications without interfering with oncological outcomes. The use of 3D virtual models, real time ultrasound and fluorescence tools to assess the anatomy and vascularization of renal tumors during PN may allow a more accurate preoperative planning and intraoperative guidance. Proper postoperative surveillance protocols are essential to detect tumor recurrences and assess functional outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

PN is the standard of care for treatment of localized T1 renal tumors. Recent data supports PN also for selected T2-T3a tumors in experienced institutions. Careful preoperative planning, adequate surgical skills and volumes and appropriate postoperative management and surveillance are paramount to optimize PN oncological and functional outcomes.

Laparoscopic retroperitoneal heminephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma in horseshoe kidney: a case report and review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

In this case report, we demonstrate our technique of a retroperitoneal laparoscopic heminephrectomy for a T1b right hilar tumor in a horseshoe kidney.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 77-year-old Vietnamese woman presented to the hospital because of right flank pain. On presentation, her serum creatinine was 0.86 mg/dL and glomerular filtration rate was 65.2 mL/minute/1.73 m2. According to her renal scintigraphy, glomerular filtration rates of the right and left moieties were 24.2 and 35.5 mL/minute, respectively. Computed tomography imaging demonstrated a 5.5 × 5.0 cm solid hilar mass with a cT1bN0M0 tumor stage was in the right moiety. After discussion, the patient elected a minimally invasive surgery to treat her malignancy. The patient was placed in a flank position. We used Gaur's balloon technique to create the retroperitoneal working space, and four trocar ports were planned for operation. Three arteries were dissected, including two arteries feeding the right moiety, one artery feeding the isthmus, and one vein, which was clipped and divided by Hem-o-lok. The isthmusectomy was performed with an Endostapler. Consequently, the ureter was clipped and divided. Finally, the whole right segment of the horseshoe kidney was mobilized and taken out via the flank incision.

RESULTS

The total operative time was 250 min with an estimated blood loss of 200 mL. The patient's serum creatinine after surgery was 1.08 mg/dL, and glomerular filtration rate was 49.47 mL/minute/1.73 m2. The patient was discharged on postoperative day #4 without complication. Final pathologic examination of the tumor specimen revealed a Fuhrman grade II clear cell renal cell carcinoma, capsular invasion, with negative surgical margins. After a three-month follow-up, the serum creatinine was 0.95 mg/dL, and glomerular filtration rate was 57.7 mL/minute/1.73 m2. Local recurrence or metastasis was not detected by follow-up computed tomography imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Retroperitoneal laparoscopic heminephrectomy is a safe and feasible technique for patients with renal cell carcinoma in a horseshoe kidney and may be particularly useful in low income settings without access to robotic technology.

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

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Early outcomes of robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy: evaluating surgical success with margin, ischemia, and complication score

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the minimum number of required cases for successful robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy for an experienced surgeon in transperitoneal robotic surgery.

METHODS

Our prospectively collected clinic database was evaluated retrospectively, and 50 patients who underwent robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy by a single experienced surgeon from January 2019 to February 2023 were included in this study. Demographic and perioperative data and R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores were noted. margin, ischemia, and complication score was used to predict surgical success. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine how many cases were required to achieve margin, ischemia, and complication score positivity and to apply the off-clamp technique. Also, the first 25 patients were assigned to Group 1 and the second 25 patients to Group 2, and the data were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The patients' demographic data and tumor characteristics were similar in the groups. The off-clamp technique and sutureless technique rates in Group 2 were significantly higher than that in Group 1. Margin, ischemia, and complication score positivity was observed in 60% (n=15) of Group 1 and 96% (n=24) of Group 2. At receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the 25th and later cases were statistically significant in terms of margin, ischemia, and complication score positivity. In terms of performing surgery with the off-clamp technique, the 28th and subsequent cases were statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

A total of 25 or more cases appear to be sufficient to provide optimal surgical results in robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy for an experienced surgeon.

Technique and outcomes of robotic-assisted retroperitoneal radical nephrectomy

Background

Robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy (rRPN) has numerous advantages over transperitoneal surgery, including direct access to the renal hilum and posterior tumors, and avoidance of the peritoneal cavity in patients with a hostile abdomen. Although the use of the retroperitoneal approach has increased over the last decade, there is little literature on robotic retroperitoneal radical nephrectomy (rRRN), which has similar benefits over the transperitoneal approach. The aim of this study was to describe our technique for robotic retroperitoneal nephrectomy (rRN) and assess its feasibility and outcomes at a high-volume center.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients who underwent some form of rRN [rRRN, robotic retroperitoneal simple nephrectomy (rRSN), or robotic retroperitoneal nephroureterectomy (rRNU)] at a single institution between 2013 and 2023. Patient characteristics, operative data, and postoperative complication rates were assessed. The technique for rRN was detailed.

Results

A total of 13 renal units in 12 patients were included for analysis (7 rRRN, 5 rRSN, 1 rRNU). Median patient age was 64.0 years, and median body mass index (BMI) was 36.0 kg/m2. Indications for retroperitoneal surgery were prior abdominal surgery in all patients, including three with bowel diversions, super morbid central obesity in two patients, and a large ventral hernia in one patient. Median operative time was 213 minutes and median estimated blood loss (EBL) was 85 cc. Median postoperative length of stay (LOS) was 3 days, and only one patient experienced a Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complication within 90 days of surgery.

Conclusions

The retroperitoneal approach for robotic-assisted nephrectomy is feasible and associated with similar outcomes as the transperitoneal approach. This approach may prove beneficial in select patients with significant prior abdominal surgery including those who are morbidly obese.

Long term experience of robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy as the default approach in the management of renal masses: should the paradigm shift?

Although retroperitoneal surgery has demonstrated a better quality of recovery compared to transperitoneal routes, Retroperitoneal Robot Assisted Partial Nephrectomy (RRAPN) remains proportionally infrequent. As the boundaries of what is achievable robotically continue to be pushed, we present our experience at a high-volume tertiary referral centre that specialises in retroperitoneal surgery, exploring its feasibility as standard of care in the management of small renal masses. A prospective database of 784 RAPNs (2009-2020) was reviewed and 721 RRAPNs (92%) were performed at our centre. In our practice, we utilise a four-port approach to RRAPN. Patient, tumour and operative characteristics were assessed and both oncological outcomes and trifecta and pentafecta achievements were determined. Pentafecta was defined as achieving trifecta (negative surgical margin, no post-operative complications and WIT of < 25 min) plus over 90% estimated GFR preservation and no CKD stage upgrading at 1 year. Multivariate analysis was conducted to predict peri-operative factors which may prevent achieving a trifecta/pentafecta outcome. From 784 cases, 112 RAPNs were performed for imperative reasons, whilst the remainder were elective. Mean BMI ± s.d amongst our cohort was 28.6 ± 5.7. Mean tumour size was 3.1 cm (range 0.8-10.5 cm) and 47% of cases were stratified as intermediate/high risk using R.E.N.A.L nephrometry scoring. Forty-six patients had lesions in a hilar location, and 31% were anterior. Median blood loss was 30mls, with an open conversion rate of 1% and transfusion rate of 1.6%. Median warm ischaemic time (WIT) was 21 min, positive surgical margins were found in 4% and our post-operative Clavien 3/ > complication rate was 2.6%. We had a 1-day median length of stay with a 30 day readmission rate of 2%. Of 631 patients (80%) with a definitive histological diagnosis of cancer, 23% had T1b/ > disease. Over a mean 15 month follow-up period (range 1-125 months), 2% of patients developed recurrences and our cohort demonstrated a 99% 5 year cancer specific survival. Trifecta was achieved in 67% of cases and pentafecta in 47%. Age (p = 0.05), operative time (p = 0.008), pT1b tumours (p = 0.03), R.E.N.A.L score and blood loss (p = 0.001) were found to statistically significantly influence achievement of trifecta. Pentafecta achievement was influenced by R.E.N.A.L score (p = 0.008), operative time (p = 0.001) and blood loss (p = 0.001). We demonstrate the retroperitoneal approach in RAPN is feasible and safe irrespective of lesion location and complexity. In the hands of high-volume centres that are skilled in the retroperitoneal approach the benefits of retroperitoneal surgery can be extended even to challenging cohorts of patients without compromising their oncological or functional outcomes.

Retroperitoneal vs. transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy: a multicenter propensity-score matching analysis (PADORA Study - UroCCR n° 68)

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy can be performed through either a transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach. This study aimed to compare the rate of trifecta achievement between retroperitoneal (RRPN) and transperitoneal (TRPN) robot-assisted partial nephrectomy using a large multicenter prospectively-maintained database and propensity-score matching analysis.

METHODS

This study was launched by the French Kidney Cancer Research Network, under the UroCCR Project (NCT03293563). Patients who underwent TRPN or RRPN by experienced surgeons in 15 participating centers were included. Data on demographic and clinical parameters, tumor characteristics, renal function, and surgical parameters were collected. The primary outcome was the rate of trifecta achievement, which was defined as a warm ischemia time of less than 25 minutes, negative surgical margins, and no major complications. Secondary outcomes included operative time, hospital length-of-stay, blood loss, postoperative complications, postoperative renal function, and each trifecta item taken alone. Subgroup analysis was done according to tumor location.

RESULTS

A total of 2879 patients (2581 TRPN vs. 298 RRPN) were included in the study. Before matching, trifecta was achieved in 73.0% of the patients in the TRPN group compared to 77.5% in the RRPN group (P=0.094). After matching 157 patients who underwent TRPN to 157 patients who underwent RRPN, the trifecta rate was 82.8% in the TRPN group vs. 84.0% in the RRPN group (P=0.065). The RRPN group showed shorter operative time (123 vs. 171 min; P<0.001) and less blood loss (161 vs. 293 mL; P<0.001). RRPN showed a higher trifecta achievement for posterior tumors than TRPN (71% vs. 81%; P=0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

RRPN is a viable alternative to the transperitoneal approach, particularly for posterior renal tumors, and is a safe and effective option for partial nephrectomy.

Technologic advances in robot-assisted nephron sparing surgery: a narrative review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Nephron sparing surgery (NSS) is the preferred management for clinical stage T1 (cT1) renal masses. In recent years, indications have expanded to larger and more complex renal tumors. In an effort to provide optimal patient outcomes, urologists strive to achieve the pentafecta when performing partial nephrectomy. This has led to the continuous technologic advancement and technique refinement including the use of augmented reality, ultrasound techniques, changes in surgical approach and reconstruction, uses of novel fluorescence marker guided imaging, and implementation of early recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols. The aim of this narrative review is to provide an overview of the recent advances in pre-, intra-, and post-operative management and approaches to managing patients with renal masses undergoing NSS.

METHODS

We performed a non-systematic literature search of PubMed and MEDLINE for the most relevant articles pertaining to the outlined topics from 2010 to 2022 without limitation on study design. We included only full-text English articles published in peer-reviewed journals.

KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS

Partial nephrectomy is currently prioritized for cT1a renal masses; however, indications have been expanding due to a greater understanding of anatomy and technologic advances. Recent studies have demonstrated that improvements in imaging techniques utilizing cross-sectional imaging with three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction, use of color doppler intraoperative ultrasound, and newer studies emerging using contrast enhanced ultrasound play important roles in certain subsets of patients. While indocyanine green administration is commonly used, novel fluorescence-guided imaging including folate receptor-targeting fluorescence molecules are being investigated to better delineate tumor-parenchyma margins. Augmented reality has a developing role in patient and surgical trainee education. While pre-and intra-operative imaging have shown to be promising, near infrared guided segmental and sub-segmental vessel clamping has yet to show significant benefit in patient outcomes. Studies regarding reconstructive techniques and replacement of reconstruction with sealing agents have a promising future. Finally, ERAS protocols have allowed earlier discharge of patients without increasing complications while improving cost burden.

CONCLUSIONS

Advances in NSS have ranged from pre-operative imaging techniques to ERAS protocols Further prospective investigations are required to determine the impact of novel imaging, in-vivo fluorescence biomarker use, and reconstructive techniques on achieving the pentafecta of NSS.

Early Postoperative Outcomes of Retroperitoneal Partial Nephrectomy of Anterior and Posterior Renal Tumors: A 5-Year Experience in A Single Center

Objective: Partial nephrectomy (PN) is one of the surgical treatment options for renal tumors. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of retroperitoneal PN for anterior and posterior tumors. Materials and Methods: This study enrolled 177 patients who had renal tumors that were detected on abdominal computed tomography and underwent PN between January 2017 and April 2021. Tumor position was defined by the anatomic avascular Brodel's line. Surgical outcomes were compared between approaches using the chi-squared Student's t-tests, logistic regression analysis, and stratification analysis. Results: Of the 177 patients, 97 (54.8%) patients had anterior renal tumors and 80 (45.2%) had posterior renal tumors. On comparing the surgical results between the two groups, the anterior group had higher levels of hemoglobin (Hb) reduction (-1.92 vs -1.54 g/dL, p = 0.0444), but the estimated blood loss showed no significant difference between the two groups (497.6 vs 433.2 mL, p = 0.4149). In addition, the alteration in estimated glomerular filtration rate at postoperative 1st day (p = 0.5616), 6th month (p = 0.5046), and at postoperative 1st year (p = 0.7085) was not significantly different between the two groups. Other surgical outcomes, such as blood transfusion rate, complications, and lengths of stay, also had no significant difference. Stratified analysis revealed the anterior renal tumors had a 3.76 times risk (p = 0.0186) than the posterior tumors for decreasing Hb >10% under laparoscopic PN. No postoperative gastrointestinal-related complications were reported. Conclusions: This study demonstrated retroperitoneal surgical access to renal tumors and revealed equivalent surgical outcomes for both anterior and posterior renal tumors. Moreover, anterior renal tumors had benefits under robotic PN for bleeding control. Retroperitoneal PN can be considered as a good approach for both anterior and posterior renal tumors with few intra-abdominal complications.

Novel Gerota-edge-sling technique facilitates retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a comparative study

Background

Retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy is markedly restricted by limited space and visual field. We introduced a novel Gerota-edge-sling (GES) technique with self-designed traction devices to overcome these defects by attaching Gerota fascia to abdominal wall, and comparatively evaluated its utilization with routine technique.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed for consecutive patients who underwent routine (control group) or GES assisted (GES group) retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy for localized renal tumors in our hospital between March 2018 and June 2020. Clinical data of perioperative outcomes and complications were collected and compared. Comparison of outcomes between anterior versus posterior tumor subgroups was also conducted. Linear regression analysis was used to define the relationship between dissection time and perinephric fat status in each group.

Results

Totally 103 patients were included, 48 in control and 55 in GES group respectively. All the procedures were completed successfully without conversion or positive surgical margin. GES group had significantly decreased console time (91 ± 36 min vs. 117 ± 41 min, p < 0.01) and dissection time (67 ± 35 min vs. 93 ± 38 min, p < 0.01) than control, while ischemia time, blood loss, and nephrometry score comparable between them. No major postoperative complications occurred. Dissection time of GES group was notably shorter than that of control in both anterior/posterior subgroups. Only in control group, dissection time was positively associated with perinephric fat status.

Conclusions

The GES technique acting as an adjunct to robotic arms with space-sparing feature, notably improves surgical exposure and facilitates dissection in retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy, while having great feasibility, efficacy and safety.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12894-022-01079-4.

Comparison of perioperative outcomes following transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a propensity-matched analysis of VCQI database

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative outcomes following retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPRAPN) and transperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (TPRAPN).

METHODS

With this Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative (VCQI) database, study propensity scores were calculated according to the surgical access (TPRAPN and RPRAPN) for the following independent variables, i.e., age, sex, side of the surgery, RENAL nephrometry scores (RNS), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and serum creatinine. The study's primary outcome was the comparison of trifecta between the two groups.

RESULTS

In this study, 309 patients who underwent RPRAPN were matched with 309 patients who underwent TPRAPN. The two groups matched well for age, sex, tumor side, polar location of the tumor, RNS, preoperative creatinine and eGFR. Operative time and warm ischemia time were significantly shorter with RPRAPN. Intraoperative blood loss and need for blood transfusion were lower with RPRAPN. There was a significantly higher number of intraoperative complications with RPRAPN. However, there was no difference in the two groups for postoperative complications. Trifecta outcomes were better with RPRAPN (70.2% vs. 53%, p < 0.0001) compared to TPRAPN. We noted no significant change in overall results when controlled for tumor location (anteriorly or posteriorly). The surgical approach, tumor size and RNS were identified as independent predictors of trifecta on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

RPRAPN is associated with superior perioperative outcomes in well-selected patients compared to TPRAPN. However, the data for the retroperitoneal approach were contributed by a few centers with greater experience with this technique, thus limiting the generalizability of the results of this study.

Retroperitoneal Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Comparative Outcomes

Context

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) has gained increasing popularity as primary minimally invasive surgical treatment for localized renal tumors, and it has preferably been performed with a transperitoneal approach. However, the retroperitoneal approach represents an alternative approach given potential advantages.

Objective

To provide an updated analysis of the comparative outcomes of retroperitoneal RAPN (R-RAPN) versus transperitoneal RAPN (T-RAPN).

Evidence acquisition

A systematic review of the literature was performed up to September 2021 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. A sensitivity analysis was performed considering only matched-pair studies.

Evidence synthesis

Seventeen studies, which were published between 2013 and 2021, were retrieved. None of them was a randomized clinical trial. Among the 6,266 patients included in the meta-analysis, 2261 (36.1%) and 4,005 (63.9%) underwent R-RAPN and T-RAPN, respectively. No significant difference was found in terms of baseline features. The T-RAPN group presented a higher rate of male patients (odds ratio [OR]: 0.86, p = 0.03) and larger tumor size (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 0.2 cm; p = 0.003). The R-RAPN group reported more frequent posterior renal masses (OR: 0.23; p < 0.0001). The retroperitoneal approach presented lower estimated blood loss (WMD: 30.41 ml; p = 0.001), shorter operative time (OT; WMD: 20.36 min; p = 0.0001), and shorter length of stay (LOS; WMD: 0.35 d; p = 0.002). Overall complication rates were 13.7% and 16.05% in the R-RAPN and T-RAPN groups, respectively (OR: 1.32; p = 0.008). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding major (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥3 grade) complication rate, “pentafecta” achievement, as well as positive margin rates. When considering only matched-pair studies, no difference between groups was found in terms of baseline characteristics. Posterior renal masses were more frequent in the R-RAPN group (OR: 0.6; p = 0.03). Similar to the analysis of the entire cohort, R-RAPN reported lower EBL (WMD: 35.56 ml; p < 0.0001) and a shorter OT (WMD: 18.31 min; p = 0.03). Overall and major complication rates were similar between the two groups. The LOS was significantly lower for R-RAPN (WMD: 0.46 d; p = 0.02). No statistically significant difference was found between groups in terms of overall PSM rates.

Conclusions

R-RAPN offers similar surgical outcomes to T-RAPN, and it carries potential advantages in terms of shorter OT and LOS. Available evidence remains limited by the lack of randomized clinical trials.

Patient summary

In this review of the literature, we looked at comparative outcomes of two surgical approaches to robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. We found that the retroperitoneal technique offers similar surgical outcomes to the transperitoneal one, with potential advantages in terms of shorter operative time and length of hospital stay.

Retroperitoneal versus transepritoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for postero-lateral renal masses: an international multicenter analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the outcomes of retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (r-RAPN) in a large cohort of patients with postero-lateral renal masses comparing to those of transperitoneal RAPN (t-RAPN).

METHODS

Patients with posterior (R.E.N.A.L. score grading P) or lateral (grading X) renal mass who underwent RAPN in six high-volume US and European centers were identified and stratified into two groups according to surgical approach: r-RAPN ("study group") and t-RAPN ("control group"). Baseline characteristics, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected and compared.

RESULTS

Overall, 447 patients were identified for the analysis. 231 (51.7%) and 216 (48.3%) patients underwent r-RAPN and t-RAPN, respectively. Baseline characteristics were not statistically significantly different between the groups. r-RAPN group reported lower median operative time (140 vs. 170 min, p < 0.001). No difference was found in ischemia time, estimated blood loss, and intraoperative complications. Overall, 47 and 54 postoperative complications were observed in r-RAPN and t-RAPN groups, respectively (20.3 vs. 25.1%, p = 0.9). 1 and 2 patients reported major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III grade) in the retroperitoneal and transperitoneal groups (0.4 vs. 0.9%, p = 0.9). There was no difference in hospital re-admission rate, median length of stay, and PSM rate. Trifecta criteria were achieved in 90.3 and 89.2% of r-RAPN and t-RAPN, respectively (p = 0.7).

CONCLUSION

r-RAPN and t-RAPN offer similar postoperative, functional, and oncological outcomes for patients with postero-lateral renal tumors. Our analysis suggests an advantage for r-RAPN in terms of shorter operative time, whereas it does not confirm a difference in terms of length of stay, as suggested by previous reports.

How to improve outcome in nephron-sparing surgery: the impact of new techniques

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nephron-sparing partial nephrectomy is the state of the art for localized small renal mass and it is gaining attention also for more advanced cases. In the present narrative review, we discuss the new developments that have occurred in the advancement of this approach over the past few years.

RECENT FINDINGS

Off-clamp, selective/superselective clamp and early-unclamping techniques are safe and feasible approaches, with potentially superior functional outcomes, and noninferior complications rate and oncological outcomes, when compared with main artery clamping. Renorrhaphy must preserve the physiological vascularization of residual parenchyma. Running sutures, particularly using barbed wires, shorten the operating and ischemia times. A further advantage could derive from avoiding a double-layer suture. Transperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and retroperitoneal RAPN can be considered equivalent in terms of perioperative morbidity, functional and oncologic outcomes, regardless of tumor's location, thus the choice of the approach should be driven by the surgeon's expertise. Future improvements should be introduced by the single-port robotic surgery, which seems to be safe and feasibly also in an off-clamp manner.

SUMMARY

Significant advances have recently been achieved in nephron-sparing surgery technique. However, future studies with standardized reporting of these new techniques are needed to assess the real impact of them on early and long-term functional outcomes.

Comparison of Posterior Retroperitoneoscopic Adrenalectomy Versus Lateral Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Adrenalectomy for Adrenal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

To discuss the differences in the effectiveness and security for adrenal tumors by posterior retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy (PRA) and lateral transperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LTA).

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus database and Cochrane Library, and the date was from above database establishment to November 2020. Stata 16 was used for calculation and statistical analyses.

Results

Nine studies involving eight hundred patients were included. The following differences were observed in favor of PRA vs LTA: less operative time (MD: -22.5; 95% CI -32.57 to -12.45; P=0.000), Fewer estimated blood loss (MD: -15.17; 95% CI -26.63 to -3.72; P=0.009), lower intensity of postoperative pain (MD: -0.56; 95% CI, -1.05 to -0.07; P=0.026), shorter length of hospital stay (MD: -1.15; 95% CI -1.94 to -0.36; P=0.04). No differences were shown in conversion rate (OR 2.07; 95%CI 0.71 to 6.03; P=0.181) and complications (OR 0.85;95% CI 0.46 to 1.56; P=0.597).

Conclusions

Posterior retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy was clinically superior to lateral transperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy for adrenal tumors in operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and postoperative pain. Only in term of conversion rate and complications, both were similar.

Nephrometry scores: a validation of three systems for peri-operative outcomes in retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy

OBJECTIVE

To externally validate the RENAL, PADUA and SPARE nephrometry scoring systems for use in retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nephrometry scores were calculated for 322 consecutive patients receiving retroperitoneal RAPN at a tertiary referral centre from 2017. Patients with multiple tumours were excluded. Scores were correlated with peri-operative outcomes, including the trifecta (warm ischaemia time <25 min, no peri-operative complications and a negative surgical margin), both as continuous and categorical variables. Comparisons were performed using Spearman correlation and ability to predict the trifecta was assessed using binomial logistical regression.

RESULTS

All three scoring systems correlated significantly with the main variables (operating time, warm ischaemia time and estimated blood loss), both as continuous and categorical variables. Only PADUA and SPARE were able to predict achievement of the trifecta (PADUA area under the curve [AUC] 0.623, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.559-0.668; SPARE AUC 0.612, 95% CI 0.548-0.677).

CONCLUSION

This study validates the RENAL, PADUA and SPARE scoring systems to predict key intra-operative outcomes in retroperitoneal RAPN. Only PADUA and SPARE were able to predict achievement of the trifecta. As a simplified version of the PADUA scoring system with comparable outcomes, we recommend using the SPARE system.