Néphrectomie partielle robot-assistée versus néphrectomie partielle laparoscopique : expérience d’un centre français

Fellowship and Subspecialization in Urology: An Analysis of Robotic-assisted Partial Nephrectomy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of a urologic fellowship on physician case-volume and immediate patient outcomes, and to assess predictors of undergoing a robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy by a fellowship-trained (FT) urologist.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all robotic (ICD-9 17.4) partial nephrectomies (PN; ICD-9 55.4) reported in the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative Systems (SPARCS) database of New York State (NYS) from 2009 to 2014. Perioperative outcomes assessed included length of stay, 30-day readmission rates, 90-day readmission rates, and complication rates. Pearson chi-square tests were used to compare categorical variables, and unpaired Student t tests were used to assess continuous variables.

RESULTS

FT urologists performed 2199 (56%) RAPN during the study period, and nonfellowship trained (NFT) urologists completed 1700 (44%) RAPN. FT urologists performed more RAPN in teaching hospitals than NFT urologists (23% vs 7%). The average surgical volume per year for a FT urologist conducting RAPN was 9.6 ± 2.2 cases/y. NFT urologists had an average surgical volume of 7.2 ± 1.5 cases/y (P = <.0001). No significant difference was found in length of stay, 30- or 90-day readmission rate, or complication rate between the groups. RAPN conducted at teaching hospitals were more likely to be conducted by FT urologists. Patients who were self-payers were less likely to have a RAPN by FT urologists.

CONCLUSION

There were no differences for RAPN perioperative outcomes between FT urologists and their NFT peers. FT urologists perform a higher case-volume of RAPN in NYS, and this trend is increasing.

Outcomes of Robotic versus Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: an Updated Meta-Analysis of 4,919 Patients

PURPOSE

We evaluated the current literature comparing outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a literature search according to Cochrane guidelines up to December 2015 including studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, and we compared baseline patient and tumor characteristics. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate safety, effectiveness and functional outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic partial nephrectomy using weighted mean difference and inverse variance pooled risk ratios, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 4,919 patients were included from 25 studies (robotic partial nephrectomy 2,681, laparoscopic partial nephrectomy 2,238). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of age, gender, laterality and final malignant pathology. Patients treated with robotic partial nephrectomy had larger tumors (WMD 0.17 cm, p=0.001) and higher mean R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores (WMD 0.59, p=0.002), and were associated with a decreased likelihood of conversion to laparoscopic/open surgery compared to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RR 0.36, p <0.001), any (Clavien 1 or greater) (RR 0.84, p=0.007) and major (Clavien 3 or greater) (RR 0.71, p=0.023) complications, positive margins (RR 0.53, p <0.001) and shorter warm ischemia time by 4.3 minutes (p <0.001). Both approaches had similar operative times (WMD -12.2 minutes, p=0.34), estimated blood loss (WMD -24.6 ml, p=0.15) and postoperative change in estimated glomerular filtration rate.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated meta-analysis of retrospective cohort studies demonstrated that robotic partial nephrectomy confers a superior morbidity profile compared to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in most of the examined perioperative outcomes. Despite being the strongest available evidence (Level 2b) for outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic partial nephrectomy thus far, there have been no completed or ongoing randomized trials to lend Level 1 support for either approach.