1
|
Sarkis J, Champy CM, Doumerc N, Bruyere F, Rouprêt M, Branger N, Surlemont L, Michel C, Waeckel T, Parier B, Beauval JB, Bigot P, Lang H, Vallee M, Guillotreau J, Patard JJ, Sarrazin C, de Vergie S, Belas O, Boissier R, Mallet R, Panthier F, Taha F, Le Clerc QC, Hoquetis L, Audenet F, Vignot L, Paparel P, Fontenil A, Bernhard JC, Ingels A. Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy for Hilar and Nonhilar Renal Masses: Comparison of Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Results in a Multicentre Prospective Cohort (NEPRAH Study, UroCCR 175). Eur Urol Oncol 2024:S2588-9311(24)00150-0. [PMID: 38937207 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.06.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2024] [Revised: 05/04/2024] [Accepted: 06/07/2024] [Indexed: 06/29/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE A hilar location for a renal tumour is sometimes viewed as a limiting factor for safe partial nephrectomy. Our aim was to evaluate perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for hilar tumours (RAPN-H) in comparison to RAPN for nonhilar tumours (RAPN-NH). METHODS We conducted an observational, multicentre cohort study using prospectively collected data from the French Research Network on Kidney Cancer (UroCCR). The registry includes data for 3551 patients who underwent RAPN for localised or locally advanced renal masses between 2010 and 2023 in 29 hospitals in France. We studied the impact of a hilar location on surgery, postoperative renal function, tumour characteristics, and survival. We also compared rates of trifecta achievement (warm ischaemia time [WIT] <25 min, negative surgical margins, and no perioperative complications) between the groups. Finally, we performed a subgroup analysis of RAPN without vascular clamping. Variables were compared in univariable analysis and using multivariable linear, logistic, and Cox proportional-hazards models adjusted for relevant patient and tumour covariates. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS The analytical population included 3451 patients, of whom 2773 underwent RAPN-NH and 678 underwent RAPN-H. Longer WIT (β = 2.4 min; p < 0.01), longer operative time (β = 11.4 min; p < 0.01) and a higher risk of postoperative complications (odds ratio 1.33; p = 0.05) were observed in the hilar group. Blood loss, the perioperative transfusion rate, postoperative changes in the estimated glomerular filtration rate, and trifecta achievement rates were comparable between the groups (p > 0.05). At mean follow-up of 31.9 mo, there was no significant difference in recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-1.2; p = 0.3), cancer-specific survival (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.48-2.6; p = 0.79), or overall survival (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.52-1.53; p = 0.69). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS Patient and tumour characteristics rather than just hilar location should be the main determinants of the optimal surgical strategy for hilar tumours. PATIENT SUMMARY We found that kidney tumours located close to major kidney blood vessels led to a longer operation and a higher risk of complications during robot-assisted surgery to remove the tumour. However, tumours in these locations were not related to a higher risk of kidney function loss, cancer recurrence, or death.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julien Sarkis
- Urology Department, Grand Hôpital de l'Est Francilien, Meaux, France.
| | - Cecile M Champy
- Urology Department, Henri Mondor University Hospital, AP-HP, Creteil, France; Inserm Clinical Investigation Centre 1430, Henri Mondor University Hospital, AP-HP, Creteil, France
| | | | | | - Morgan Rouprêt
- Urology Department, CHU La Pitié Salpêtrière, AP-HP Paris, France
| | - Nicolas Branger
- Urology Department, Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille, France
| | | | | | | | - Bastien Parier
- Urology Department, Hôpital Bicêtre, AP-HP Paris, France
| | | | | | - Hervé Lang
- Urology Department, CHRU Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Romain Boissier
- Aix Marseille Université, Service de Chirurgie urologique et de Transplantation rénale, CHU Conception, AP-HM, Marseille, France
| | - Richard Mallet
- Urology Department, Polyclinique Francheville, Périgueux, France
| | | | - Fayek Taha
- Urology Department, CHU Reims, Reims, France
| | | | | | - François Audenet
- Urology Department, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France
| | | | - Philippe Paparel
- Urology Department, Lyon Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France
| | | | | | - Alexandre Ingels
- Urology Department, Henri Mondor University Hospital, AP-HP, Creteil, France; Inserm Clinical Investigation Centre 1430, Henri Mondor University Hospital, AP-HP, Creteil, France
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Chen XB, Li YG, Wu T, Du ZB, Tan CL, Zhang Q, Yu XD. Perioperative, oncologic, and functional outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for special types of renal tumors (hilar, endophytic, or cystic): an evidence-based analysis of comparative outcomes. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1178592. [PMID: 37152053 PMCID: PMC10157041 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1178592] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2023] [Accepted: 04/05/2023] [Indexed: 05/09/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to perform a pooled analysis to compare the outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) between complex tumors (hilar, endophytic, or cystic) and non-complex tumors (nonhilar, exophytic, or solid) and evaluate the effects of renal tumor complexity on outcomes in patients undergoing RAPN. Methods Four databases were systematically searched, including Science, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, to identify relevant studies published in English up to December 2022. Review Manager 5.4 was used for statistical analyses and calculations. The study was registered with PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42023394792). Results In total, 14 comparative trials, including 3758 patients were enrolled. Compared to non-complex tumors, complex tumors were associated with a significantly longer warm ischemia time (WMD 3.67 min, 95% CI 1.78, 5.57; p = 0.0001), more blood loss (WMD 22.84 mL, 95% CI 2.31, 43.37; p = 0.03), and a higher rate of major complications (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.50, 3.67; p = 0.0002). However, no statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in operative time, length of stay, transfusion rates, conversion to open nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy rates, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline, intraoperative complication, overall complication, positive surgical margins (PSM), local recurrence, and trifecta achievement. Conclusions RAPN can be a safe and effective procedure for complex tumors (hilar, endophytic, or cystic) and provides comparable functional and oncologic outcomes to non-complex tumors. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=394792, identifier CRD42023394792.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiao-bin Chen
- Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China
| | - Yu-gen Li
- Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China
| | - Tao Wu
- Department of Clinical Medicine, North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China
| | - Zhong-bo Du
- Department of Clinical Medicine, North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China
| | - Chun-lin Tan
- Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China
| | - Qiang Zhang
- Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China
| | - Xiao-dong Yu
- Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China
- Department of Clinical Medicine, North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China
- *Correspondence: Xiao-dong Yu,
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kaviani A, Zeinab MA, Ferguson E, Beksac AT, Kaouk J. Robotic partial nephrectomy for hilar tumors: The contemporary technique. UROLOGY VIDEO JOURNAL 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urolvj.2022.100179] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
|
4
|
Tyagi S, Sharma G, Bora GS, Mavuduru RS, Sharma AP, Devana SK, Gorsi U, Kakkar N, Singh SK. Trifecta and pentafecta outcomes following robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for hilar versus nonhilar tumors: A propensity-matched analysis. Indian J Urol 2021; 37:318-324. [PMID: 34759522 PMCID: PMC8555573 DOI: 10.4103/iju.iju_136_21] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2021] [Revised: 06/30/2021] [Accepted: 09/14/2021] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction Hilar tumors are a unique subset of complex renal masses posing a potential surgical challenge during partial nephrectomy. The outcomes of hilar masses have not been compared to non-hilar renal masses of similar RENAL nephrometry score (RNS). In this study, we analyzed the outcomes of hilar versus nonhilar masses after a propensity score matching. Methods Prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent robot assisted PN between November 2014 and December 2018 was abstracted for hilar and nonhilar tumors. We performed propensity matching for baseline variables such as age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, preoperative glomerular filtration rate, and RNS for each patient on the basis of propensity scores. Results We included 48 patients with hilar tumors and 153 with nonhilar tumors. On propensity matching, 41 patients were included in each group. The mean operative time (162.4 ± 48.9 min vs. 144.1 ± 38.8 min, P = 0.48), warm ischemia time (29.0 ± 8.8 min vs. 24.4 ± 8.2 min, P = 0.12), and the estimated blood loss (201.8 ± 184.7 ml vs. 150.6 ± 160.5 ml, P = 0.37) were not significantly different between the hilar and the nonhilar groups. Trifecta was achieved in only 14/41 (34.1%) of the patients in the hilar group as compared to 24/41 (58.5%) in the nonhilar group (P = 0.027). Logistic regression analysis identified that hilar location of the tumors was not an independent predictor of overall complications (OR 6.37, confidence interval [CI] 0.5-69.4, P = 0.4), trifecta (OR 0.38, CI 0.14-1.0, P = 0.051), and pentafecta outcomes (OR 0.4, CI 0.1-1.51, P = 0.17). Conclusions Hilar location was associated with poorer trifecta outcomes compared to the nonhilar tumors. However, hilar location per se was not an independent predictor of overall complications and trifecta and pentafecta outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shantanu Tyagi
- Department of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| | - Gopal Sharma
- Department of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| | - Girdhar S Bora
- Department of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| | - Ravimohan S Mavuduru
- Department of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| | - Aditya Prakash Sharma
- Department of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| | - Sudheer Kumar Devana
- Department of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| | - Ujjwal Gorsi
- Department of Radiodiagnosis, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| | - Nandita Kakkar
- Department of Histopathology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| | - Shrawan K Singh
- Department of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Seetharam Bhat KR, Moschovas MC, Onol FF, Rogers T, Roof S, Patel VR, Schatloff O. Robotic renal and adrenal oncologic surgery: A contemporary review. Asian J Urol 2021; 8:89-99. [PMID: 33569275 PMCID: PMC7859360 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajur.2020.05.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2019] [Revised: 03/30/2020] [Accepted: 04/22/2020] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
Robot-assisted surgery has evolved over time. Radical nephrectomy with inferior vena cava thrombectomy is feasible and safe for level I, II and III thrombus in high volume centers. Though it is feasible for level IV thrombus, this procedure needs a multi-departmental co-operation. However, the safety of robot-assisted procedures in this subset is still unknown. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy has been universally approved and found oncologically safe. Robotic adrenalectomy has been increasingly utilized for select cases, especially in bilateral tumors and for retroperitoneal adrenalectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Fikret Fatih Onol
- Global Robotics Institute, AdventHealth Celebration Health, Celebration, FL, USA
| | - Travis Rogers
- Global Robotics Institute, AdventHealth Celebration Health, Celebration, FL, USA
| | - Shannon Roof
- Global Robotics Institute, AdventHealth Celebration Health, Celebration, FL, USA
| | - Vipul R. Patel
- Global Robotics Institute, AdventHealth Celebration Health, Celebration, FL, USA
| | - Oscar Schatloff
- Global Robotics Institute, AdventHealth Celebration Health, Celebration, FL, USA
- Sudmedica Health, Chile
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Chen L, Deng W, Luo Y, Liu W, Li Y, Liu X, Wang G, Fu B. Comparison of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for Renal Hilar Tumors: Results from a Tertiary Referral Center. J Endourol 2020; 36:941-946. [PMID: 33267649 DOI: 10.1089/end.2020.0151] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luyao Chen
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China
| | - Wen Deng
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China
| | - Yixing Luo
- Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China
| | - Weipeng Liu
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China
| | - Yu Li
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China
| | - Xiaoqiang Liu
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China
| | - Gongxian Wang
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China
| | - Bin Fu
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Bauza JL, Tubau V, Guimerà J, Ladaria L, Aliaga C, Piza P, Pieras E. Retroperitoneoscopic approach for highly complex posterior renal hilar tumors. Int Braz J Urol 2020; 46:485-486. [PMID: 32167727 PMCID: PMC7088471 DOI: 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2019.0074] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/06/2019] [Accepted: 01/27/2020] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives: To show our single-center experience in retroperitoneoscopic approach for highly complex posterior hilar tumors. Minimally invasive nephron sparing surgery for renal hilar tumors is extremely challenging due to their anatomic location, close to the main renal vessels and the collecting system (1). Transperitoneal approach is feasible, but highly complex because the anterior disposition of the vasculature. Retroperitoneal approach can easily provide access to the posterior hilar structures and the posterolateral surface of the kidney(2, 3). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our hilar renal tumor database and analyzed those in which a retroperitoneoscopic approach was chosen. The RENAL score was then calculated, and operative and ischemia times were recorded. We also collected the mean hospital stay and the presence of complications. Pathology reports and follow-up were also gathered. Results: Five of our twelve highly complex hilar renal tumor patients were treated using a retroperitoneoscopic approach. Mean RENAL score was 10. Mean operative time was 135 minutes. Mean warm ischemia time was 14 minutes. Mean hospital stay was 4 days. We have recorded 2 complications. One patient required a transfusion and another presented with an urinary fistula which was treated by double J stent placement. The pathology report showed a clear cell renal cell carcinoma pT1a in most of the cases. Only one patient had a positive margin. To date, no recurrences have been noticed. Conclusions: The treatment of complex renal hilar tumors in a minimally invasive fashion is highly challenging even in experienced hands. Retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy is feasible, safe and effective for the treatment of such lesions. Long-term oncologic outcomes of this approach are awaited.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jose Luis Bauza
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Son Espases, Palma de Mallorca, Illes Balears, Spain
| | - Valentí Tubau
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Son Espases, Palma de Mallorca, Illes Balears, Spain
| | - Jorge Guimerà
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Son Espases, Palma de Mallorca, Illes Balears, Spain
| | - Luis Ladaria
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Son Espases, Palma de Mallorca, Illes Balears, Spain
| | - Carlos Aliaga
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Son Espases, Palma de Mallorca, Illes Balears, Spain
| | - Pedro Piza
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Son Espases, Palma de Mallorca, Illes Balears, Spain
| | - Enrique Pieras
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Son Espases, Palma de Mallorca, Illes Balears, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Bravi CA, Larcher A, Capitanio U, Mari A, Antonelli A, Artibani W, Barale M, Bertini R, Bove P, Brunocilla E, Da Pozzo L, Di Maida F, Fiori C, Gontero P, Li Marzi V, Longo N, Mirone V, Montanari E, Porpiglia F, Schiavina R, Schips L, Simeone C, Siracusano S, Terrone C, Trombetta C, Volpe A, Montorsi F, Ficarra V, Carini M, Minervini A. Perioperative Outcomes of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: A Prospective Multicenter Observational Study (The RECORd 2 Project). Eur Urol Focus 2019; 7:390-396. [PMID: 31727523 DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2019.10.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2019] [Revised: 09/24/2019] [Accepted: 10/17/2019] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Partial nephrectomy (PN) has a non-negligible perioperative morbidity. Comparative evidence of the available surgical techniques is limited. OBJECTIVE To compare the perioperative outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic PN. METHODS Data of 2331 patients treated with PN for cT1 renal tumors were extracted from the RECORd2 database, a prospective multicenter project. Multivariable regression models assessed the relationship between surgical technique and surgical margins, warm ischemia time, postoperative complications, and acute kidney injury (AKI). The probability of achieving a modified trifecta (negative margins, warm ischemia time <25min, and no Clavien-Dindo ≥2 complications) was examined for each surgical approach. RESULTS Minimally invasive techniques had lower rate of Clavien-Dindo ≥2 complications than that of open surgery (odds ratio [OR] for robotic surgery: 0.27; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.15-0.47, p< 0.0001; OR for laparoscopy: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.34-0.78; p= 0.002). The probability of receiving ischemia was highest for robotic PN (p< 0.001). Among on-clamp PN, laparoscopy had longer ischemia than open (estimate: 1.09; 95% CI: -0.00 to 2.18; p= 0.050) and robotic (estimate: 1.36; 95% CI: 0.31-2.40; p= 0.011) surgery. When compared with open PN, the risk of AKI was roughly halved for patients treated by robotic and laparoscopic surgery (both p< 0.0001). Positive margins rate did not differ between the groups (all p≥ 0.1). The likelihood to achieve a modified trifecta was not affected by surgical technique in the overall population (all p≥ 0.075). In Preoperative Aspects and Dimensions Used for an Anatomical (PADUA) score < 10 lesions, robotic surgery had higher probability of achieving a modified trifecta than open PN (OR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.09-2.53; p= 0.018) and laparoscopy (OR: 1.34; 95% CI: 0.94-1.90; p= 0.11). CONCLUSIONS In PADUA<10 renal tumors, robotic PN allows for higher rates of trifecta than open and laparoscopic surgeries. The impact of surgical technique on perioperative outcomes of PN might be limited in more complex lesions. PATIENT SUMMARY We evaluated the association between surgical technique and perioperative outcomes of partial nephrectomy. In less complex (Preoperative Aspects and Dimensions Used for an Anatomical [PADUA] score < 10) lesions, robotic PN allows for higher rates of trifecta when compared with other surgical techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carlo Andrea Bravi
- Unit of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, URI-Urological Research Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Alessandro Larcher
- Unit of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, URI-Urological Research Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Umberto Capitanio
- Unit of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, URI-Urological Research Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Andrea Mari
- Department of Urology, University of Florence, Unit of Oncologic Minimally-Invasive Urology and Andrology, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | - Alessandro Antonelli
- Department of Urology, Ospedali Civili Hospital, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
| | - Walter Artibani
- Department of Urology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata (A.O.U.I.), Verona, Italy
| | - Maurizio Barale
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Roberto Bertini
- Unit of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, URI-Urological Research Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Pierluigi Bove
- Department of Urology, University Hospital of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
| | - Eugenio Brunocilla
- Department of Urology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy; Department of Experimental, Diagnostic, and Specialty Medicine, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Luigi Da Pozzo
- Department of Urology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy
| | - Fabrizio Di Maida
- Department of Urology, University of Florence, Unit of Oncologic Minimally-Invasive Urology and Andrology, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | - Cristian Fiori
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, School of Medicine, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - Paolo Gontero
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Vincenzo Li Marzi
- Department of Urology, University of Florence, Unit of Urological Minimally Invasive Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | - Nicola Longo
- Department of Urology, University Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Vincenzo Mirone
- Department of Urology, University Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Emanuele Montanari
- Department of Urology, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Porpiglia
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, School of Medicine, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - Riccardo Schiavina
- Department of Urology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy; Department of Experimental, Diagnostic, and Specialty Medicine, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Luigi Schips
- Department of Urology, SS Hospital. Annunziata, Chieti, Italy
| | - Claudio Simeone
- Department of Urology, Ospedali Civili Hospital, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
| | - Salvatore Siracusano
- Department of Urology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata (A.O.U.I.), Verona, Italy
| | - Carlo Terrone
- Department of Urology, University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Carlo Trombetta
- U.C.O. Clinica Urologica, Università degli Studi di Trieste, Trieste, Italy
| | - Alessandro Volpe
- Department of Urology, Maggiore della Carità Hospital, Novara, Italy
| | - Francesco Montorsi
- Unit of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, URI-Urological Research Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Vincenzo Ficarra
- Department of Human and Paediatric Pathology, Gaetano Barresi, Urologic Section, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
| | - Marco Carini
- Department of Urology, University of Florence, Unit of Oncologic Minimally-Invasive Urology and Andrology, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | - Andrea Minervini
- Department of Urology, University of Florence, Unit of Oncologic Minimally-Invasive Urology and Andrology, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Sunaryo PL, Paulucci DJ, Okhawere K, Beksac AT, Sfakianos JP, Abaza R, Eun DD, Bhandari A, Hemal AK, Porter J, Badani KK. A multi-institutional analysis of 263 hilar tumors during robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. J Robot Surg 2019; 14:585-591. [DOI: 10.1007/s11701-019-01028-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2019] [Accepted: 09/16/2019] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
|