Comparison by Pentafecta Criteria of Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for Large Renal Tumors

Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) can be performed either by a transperitoneal (TP) or a retroperitoneal (RP) approach. However, the superiority of one approach over the other is not established. Hence, the primary aim of this review was to compare perioperative outcomes between these two surgical approaches.

METHODS

Literature was systematically searched to identify studies reporting perioperative outcomes following TP RAPN and RP RAPN. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023399496). The primary outcome was comparing complication rates between the two approaches.

RESULTS

This review included 22 studies, 5675 patients, 2524 in the RP group, and 3151 in the TP group. The overall complications were significantly lower in the RP group [Odds ratio (OR) 0.80 (0.67, 0.95), p = 0.01]. However, the rate of major complications was similar between the two groups. The operative time was significantly shorter with the RP group [Mean Difference (MD)-16.7 (- 22.3, - 11.0), p =  < 0.0001]. Estimated blood loss (EBL) and need for blood transfusion (BT) were significantly lower in the RP group. There was no difference between the two groups for conversion to radical nephrectomy [OR 0.66 (0.33, 1.33), p = 0.25] or open surgery [OR 0.68 (0.24, 1.92, p = 0.47] and positive surgical margins [OR 0.93 (0.66, 1.31, p = 0.69]. Length of stay (LOS) was shorter in the RP group [MD - 0.27 (- 0.45, - 0.08), p =  < 0.00001].

CONCLUSIONS

RP approach, compared to TP, has significantly lower complication rates, EBL, need for BT and LOS. However, due to the lack of randomized studies on the topic, further data is required.

Robotic transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approach for anterior renal mass nephron-sparing surgery

Robotic nephron-sparing surgery is traditionally performed via a transperitoneal (TP) approach. However, the retroperitoneal (RP) approach has gained popularity, particularly for posterolateral renal masses. The RP approach is associated with shorter operative time, less blood loss, and shorter length of stay, while preserving oncologic outcomes in selected masses. Here, we aim to assess the feasibility of the RP approach in excising anterior renal masses. Patients ≥ 18 years of age who underwent robotic nephron-sparing surgery for anterior renal masses were retrospectively identified (2008-2022). Baseline demographics, tumor characteristics, and perioperative data were collected and characterized based on TP vs RP approaches. Wilcoxon rank sum test and Pearson's Chi-squared test were used to compare continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Two hundred and sixteen patients were included-178 (82.4%) underwent TP approach and 38 (17.6%) underwent RP approach. Baseline demographics, preoperative tumor size, and renal nephrometry scores were similar. The RP approach was associated with shorter operative (150 vs 203 min, p < 0.001) and warm ischemia time (12 vs 21 min, p < 0.001), and less blood loss (20 vs 100 cc, p = 0.002) (Table 1). The RP approach was associated with shorter length of stay (1 vs 2 days, p < 0.001) and less total complications (5.3% vs 19.1%, p = 0.038). Major complication (Clavien-Dindo Grade > 3) rates were similar. There was no difference in positive surgical margin rates or pathologic characteristics. Robotic RP approach for nephron-sparing surgery is feasible for eligible anterior tumors and is associated with favorable perioperative outcomes with preserved negative surgical margin rates. Table 1 Patient baseline demographics Overall Transperitoneal Retroperitoneal p value Median/N IQR/% Median/N IQR/% Median/N IQR/% N 216 178 82.4% 38 17.6% Age (years) 60.5 (52.1-67.7) 60.4 (52.8-67.7) 61.6 (49.1-69.2) 0.393 Sex Male 126 58.3% 100 56.2% 26 68.4% Female 90 41.7% 78 43.8% 12 31.6% 0.165 Race White 162 75.0% 137 77.0% 25 65.8% Asian 4 1.9% 2 1.1% 2 5.3% Black 21 9.7% 18 10.1% 3 7.9% Hispanic 26 12.0% 18 10.1% 8 21.1% Other 2 0.9% 2 1.1% 0 0.0% 0.197 Body mass index (kg/m2)  < 25 32 14.8% 25 14.0% 7 18.4% 25-30 68 31.5% 55 30.9% 13 34.2% 30-35 60 27.8% 50 28.1% 10 26.3% 35 +  56 25.9% 48 27.0% 8 21.1% 0.808 Prior abdominal surgery Yes 118 54.6% 104 58.4% 14 36.8% No 98 45.4% 74 41.6% 24 63.2% 0.015 Prior kidney surgery Yes 10 4.6% 9 5.1% 1 2.6% No 206 95.4% 169 94.9% 37 97.4% 0.518 Chronic kidney disease stage ≥ 3 Yes 45 20.8% 38 21.3% 7 18.4% No 171 79.2% 140 78.7% 31 81.6% 0.687 Charlson comorbidity index 0 138 63.9% 116 65.2% 22 57.9% 1 46 21.3% 38 21.4% 8 21.1% 2 19 8.8% 13 7.3% 6 15.8%  ≥ 3 13 6.0% 11 6.2% 2 5.3% 0.412 Tumor size (cm) 2.7 (2-3.6) 2.8 (2-3.5) 2.55 (2-3.7) 0.796 Tumor laterality Left 100 46.3% 78 43.8% 22 57.9% Right 116 53.7% 100 56.2% 16 42.1% 0.114 Clinical T stage cT1a 186 86.1% 152 85.4% 34 89.5% cT1b 30 13.9% 26 14.6% 4 10.5% 0.509 RENAL Nephrometry score Low (4 to 6) 94 43.5% 76 42.7% 18 47.4% Intermediate (7 to 9) 112 51.9% 94 52.8% 18 47.4% High (≥ 10) 19 4.6% 8 4.5% 2 5.3% 0.829 TE tumor enucleation, SPN standard margin partial nephrectomy, IQR interquartile range.

Robotic partial nephrectomy for renal tumor: The pentafecta outcomes of a single surgeon experience

PURPOSE

This study investigated the oncological and functional surgical outcomes for patients with renal tumor who underwent robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (PN) by a single surgeon in Taiwan from 2006 to 2019.

METHODS

This retrospective study assessed patients who underwent robot-assisted PN for renal tumor. Patient data were analyzed for age, sex, body mass index, operative time and total ischemic time, surgical margin (positive/negative), and surgical complications. To evaluate functional and oncological outcomes, achievement of trifecta, and pentafecta criteria was used. Trifecta criteria were defined as a negative surgical margin, no postoperative complications, warm ischemia time <25 min. Pentafecta criteria were the trifecta criteria, >90% preservation of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) preservation, and no stage progression of chronic kidney disease at 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Of 101 patients who received robot-assisted PN, the most common type of renal tumor was clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (38%), followed by angiomyolipoma (26%). Patient characteristics were mean age 54.59 ± 13.8 years; mean RENAL Nephrometry score 6.63 ± 2.16; mean operative time 102.34 ± 50.06 min; and warm ischemia time 20.01 ± 14.12 min. The mean eGFR was 104.43 ± 31.73 mL/min/1.73 m2 preoperatively and 89.39 ± 32.3 mL/min/1.73 m2 postoperatively. Pathologic evaluation showed malignant tumors in 57 patients, among whom achievement of trifecta criteria occurred for 39 (68.42%) and pentafecta criteria for 18 (31.57%). Operation time was the only predictor for pentafecta achievement.

CONCLUSION

Robotic PN is a safe and effective approach for patients with renal tumor that can preserve most renal function and achieve oncological control. Pentafecta criteria can be used to more clearly define the surgical outcome of RAPN.

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.

Comparison of Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for Patients with Completely Lower Pole Renal Tumors

(1) Background: For completely lower pole renal tumors, we compared the perioperative outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy via transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. (2) Methods: Complete lower pole renal tumors were defined as tumors that received 1 point for the “L” element of the R.E.N.A.L. and located at the lower pole of kidney. After confirming consistency in baseline characteristics, oncological and functional benefits were compared. Pentafecta achievement was used to represent the perioperative optimal outcome, followed by multivariate analysis of factors associated with the lack of pentafecta achievement. (3) Results: Among 151 patients identified, 116 (77%) underwent robotic partial nephrectomy via a transperitoneal approach and 35 (23%) via a retroperitoneal approach. Patients undergoing transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy experienced more blood loss than those undergoing retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (50 mL vs. 40 mL, p = 0.015). No significant differences were identified for operative time (120 min vs. 120 min), ischemia time (19 min vs. 20 min), positive surgical margins (0.0% vs. 2.86%), postoperative rate of complication (12.07% vs. 5.71%). No significant differences were identified in pathologic variables, eGFR decline in postoperative 12-month (3.9% vs. 5.4%) functional follow-up. Multivariate cox analysis showed that tumor size (OR: 0.523; 95% CI: 0.371−0.736; p < 0.001) alone was independently correlated to the achievement of pentafecta. (4) Conclusions: For completely lower pole renal tumors, transperitoneal and retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy provide similar outcomes. These two surgical approaches remain feasible options for these cases.

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: Can retroperitoneal approach suit for renal tumors of all locations?-A large retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to explore the appropriate location of renal tumors for retroperitoneal approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 1040 patients with renal tumor who were treated at our institution from Janurary 2015 to June 2020 and had underwent retroperitoneal robotic assisted-laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (rRAPN). Clinical features and postoperative outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Patients with incomplete data were excluded, and we included 896 patients in total. The median tumor size was 3.0 (range: 0.8-10.0) cm. The median RENAL Nephrometry Score was 7 (range: 4-11), and the median PADUA Nephrometry Score was 8 (range: 6-14). The median surgical time was 120 min, and the median warm ischemia time was 18 min. The median estimated blood loss was 50 ml. The follow-up time was 20.2 (range: 12-69) months. The mean change of eGFR 1 year after operation was 14.6% ± 19.0% compared with preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). When compared the tumor at different locations, as superior or inferior pole, anterior of posterior face of kidney, there were no significant differences of intra- and post-operative outcomes such as surgical time, warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss, removal time of drainage tube and catheter, postoperative feeding time and hospital stay, and changes of eGFR one year after surgery. We also compared tumors at special locations as endophytic or exophytic, anterior of posterior hilus of kidney, there were no significant differences in surgical time, warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss and changes of eGFR. There was no significant difference in intraoperative features and postoperative outcomes when tumor larger than 4 cm was located at different positions of kidney. Though the surgical time was longer when BMI ≥ 28 (132.6 min vs. 122.5 min, p = 0.004), no significant differences were observed in warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss, changes in eGFR. Twenty-seven patients (3.0%) had tumor progression, including 8 (0.9%) recurrence, 19 (2.1%) metastasis, and 9 (1.0%) death.

CONCLUSION

Retroperitoneal approach for RAPN has confirmed acceptable intra- and postoperative outcomes and suits for renal tumors of all different locations. Large tumor size and obesity are not contraindications for rRAPN.

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.

Comparison of Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for Patients With Complete Upper Pole Renal Tumors

OBJECTIVES

We compared the outcomes of transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (TRPN) and retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RRPN) for complete upper pole renal masses (1 point for the "L" component of the RENAL scoring system).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent either TRPN or RRPN from 2013 to 2016. Baseline demographics and perioperative, functional, and oncological results were compared. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors related to pentafecta achievement (ischemia time ≤25 min, negative margin, perioperative complication free, glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) preservation >90%, and no chronic kidney disease upstaging).

RESULTS

No significant differences between TRPN vs. RRPN were noted for operating time (110 vs. 114 min, p = 0.870), renal artery clamping time (19 vs. 18 min, p = 0.248), rate of positive margins (0.0% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.502), postoperative complication rates (25.0% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.140). TRPN was associated with a more estimated blood loss (50 vs. 40 ml, p = 0.004). There were no significant differences in pathologic variables, rate of eGFR decline for postoperative 12-month (9.0% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.449) functional follow-up. Multivariate analysis identified that only RENAL score (odd ratio: 0.641; 95% confidence interval: 0.455-0.904; p = 0.011) was independently associated with the pentafecta achievement.

CONCLUSIONS

For completely upper pole renal masses, both TRPN and RRPN have good and comparable results. Both surgical approaches remain viable options in the treatment of these cases.

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.

Retroperitoneal Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy (rRAPN): Surgical Technique and Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We aim to offer a description of the surgical technique and to review the current state retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (rRAPN).

RECENT FINDINGS

Partial nephrectomy is the standard treatment for localized kidney tumours. rRAPN is especially useful for kidney tumours of posterior location. It offers advantages such as direct access to the renal artery and no need for bowel mobilization. The disadvantages are the small working space and the less familiar anatomical landmarks. It is a reproducible technique that achieves similar oncological and functional results to the more traditional transperitoneal route (tRAPN). High-quality randomized studies are needed to ascertain the role of new technologies as modern high-flow insufflation systems, intracavitary ultrasound, 3D planning, and augmented reality (AR), in the performance of this operation. rRAPN is especially useful for kidney tumours of posterior location. Robotic surgeons ideally should become familiar with both approaches, transperitoneal or retroperitoneal.

Retroperitoneal or transperitoneal approach in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy, which one is better?

Purpose

To systematically assess the perioperative outcomes of retroperitoneal (RP) and transperitoneal (TP) approaches in robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN), we conducted an updated meta‐analysis.

Methods

A literature retrieval of multi‐database including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI was performed to identify eligible comparative studies from the inception dates to January 2021. Perioperative outcomes included operative time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), warm ischemia time (WIT), postoperative length of stay (PLOS), positive surgical margin (PSM), and complications (major complications and overall complications). Outcomes of data were pooled and analyzed with Review Manager 5.4.1.

Results

Twenty‐one studies involving a total of 2482 RP and 3423 TP approach RAPN patients met the inclusion criteria. Operating time (OT) (weighted mean difference [WMD] −16.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] −23.08, −10.12; p < 0.01) and PLOS (WMD −0.46 days; 95% CI −0.69, −0.23; p < 0.01) were shorter in RP‐RAPN. Besides, lower EBL (WMD −21.67; 95% CI −29.74, −13.60; p < 0.05) was also found in RP‐RAPN. Meanwhile, no significant differences were found in other outcomes.

Conclusions

RP‐RARN was superior to TP‐RAPN in patients undergoing RAPN in terms of OT, PLOS, and estimated blood loss. Besides these two approaches have no significant differences in PSMs or perioperative complications.

Comparison of Outcomes Between Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: A Meta-Analysis Based on Comparative Studies

Background

To compare perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes between transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (TRPN) and retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RRPN).

Methods

A literature searching of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science was performed in August, 2020. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using fixed-effect or random-effect model. Publication bias was evaluated with funnel plots. Only comparative studies with matched design or similar baseline characteristics were included.

Results

Eleven studies embracing 2,984 patients were included. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding conversion to open (P = 0.44) or radical (P = 0.31) surgery, all complications (P = 0.06), major complications (P = 0.07), warm ischemia time (P = 0.73), positive surgical margin (P = 0.87), decline in eGFR (P = 0.42), CKD upstaging (P = 0.72), and total recurrence (P = 0.66). Patients undergoing TRPN had a significant higher minor complications (P = 0.04; OR: 1.39; 95% CI, 1.01–1.91), longer operative time (P < 0.001; WMD: 21.68; 95% CI, 11.61 to 31.76), more estimated blood loss (EBL, P = 0.002; WMD: 40.94; 95% CI, 14.87 to 67.01), longer length of hospital stay (LOS, P < 0.001; WMD: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.37). No obvious publication bias was identified.

Conclusion

RRPN is more favorable than TRPN in terms of less minor complications, shorter operative time, less EBL, and shorter LOS. Methodological limitations of the included studies should be considered while interpreting these results.

Comparison of Therapeutic Effects Among Different Surgical Approaches in Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: To systematically explore the superiority of the transperitoneal approach in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (TP-RAPN) and retroperitoneal approach in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RP-RAPN). Methods: Several databases were searched including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM, Wan Fang, and VIP to identify relevant studies that reported the comparison of the TP-RAPN and RP-RAPN. Outcomes of data were pooled and analyzed with Review Manager 5.3 to compare the intraoperative and postoperative variables and postoperative complications. Based on the heterogeneity of the studies, odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effect model or fixed-effect model. The sensitivity analysis and the subgroup analysis were used to minimize the effects of heterogeneity. And, publication bias was assessed by funnel plots. Results: In all, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria, including 2336 TP-RAPN patients and 1705 RP-RAPN patients. This meta-analysis reviewed 16 studies on RAPN, and the RP-RAPN showed shorter operative time (OT) (WMD 13.18 minutes; 95% CI 5.04-21.31; p = 0.001), shorter postoperative bowel function recovery (WMD 1.97 days; 95% CI 0.43-3.52; p = 0.01), shorter length of stay (LOS) (WMD 0.51 days; 95% CI 0.25-0.77; p = 0.0001), and lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD 7.08 mL; 95% CI 1.41-12.74; p = 0.01) than the TP-RAPN. Additionally, no significant differences were found in other outcomes. Conclusions: In comparison, the RP-RAPN had significantly shorter OT, postoperative bowel function recovery time, LOS, and lower EBL. The RP-RAPN is associated with better value for posterior and laterally located tumors and is faster and equally safe and low costs for the patient.

Retroperitoneal Versus Transperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: A Multicenter Matched-pair Analysis

BACKGROUND

With increasing acceptance of robotic partial nephrectomy over the last decade, there is an ongoing discussion about the transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal access.

OBJECTIVE

To report outcomes after transperitoneal (TRPN) versus retroperitoneal (RRPN) robotic partial nephrectomy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 754 patients were identified from the databases of three high-volume centers who underwent either TRPN (n = 551) or RRPN (n = 203).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Perioperative data were evaluated retrospectively. A propensity score matched-pair analysis was performed with the following variables: grade of renal insufficiency, age, body mass index, tumor diameter, and preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) score with a subsequent subgroup analysis for tumor location. For quality outcomes, the margin, ischemia, and complications (MIC) criteria were used (negative margins, ischemia time <20 min, and no major complications). Statistical analyses included chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

In all, 176 patients could be matched in each group. The median tumor diameter was 28 mm with a PADUA score of 9. In 11% of RRPN versus 44% of TRPN cases, an anterior tumor location was found, and in 55% versus 30%, a posterior lesion was found (p < 0.001). Operative time (119 vs 139 min, p < 0.001) and warm ischemia time (9 vs 10 min, p = 0.003) were significantly shorter for RRPN. No significant differences were observed between intra- and postoperative complication rates, with 8% major complications in TRPN versus 3% in RRPN (p = 0.06). The MIC criteria were achieved in 90% in the RRPN versus 88% in the TRPN group, without differences for tumor location.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences between TRPN and RRPN could be found for intraoperative time, while complication rates and quality outcomes were comparable. RRPN can also be a considerable alternative for anterior tumors.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this study, we demonstrate that robotic partial nephrectomy is feasible with either a transperitoneal or a retroperitoneal surgical access. The posterior approach can also be used for anterior renal tumors and may result in shorter operative time.

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)

BACKGROUND

Aim of this study was to evaluate and compare perioperative outcomes of transperitoneal (TP) and retroperitoneal (TR) approaches in a multi-institutional cohort of minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MI-PN).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All consecutive patients undergone MI-PN for clinical T1 renal tumors at 26 Italian centers (RECORd2 project) between 01/2013 and 12/2016 were evaluated, collecting the pre-, intra-, and postoperative data. The patients were then stratified according to the surgical approach, TP or RP. A 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching was performed to obtain homogeneous cohorts, considering the age, gender, baseline eGFR, surgical indication, clinical diameter, and PADUA score.

RESULTS

1669 patients treated with MI-PN were included in the study, 1256 and 413 undergoing TP and RP, respectively. After 1:1 PS matching according to the surgical access, 413 patients were selected from TP group to be compared with the 413 RP patients. Concerning intraoperative variables, no differences were found between the two groups in terms of surgical approach (lap/robot), extirpative technique (enucleation vs standard PN), hilar clamping, and ischemia time. Conversely, the TP group recorded a shorter median operative time in comparison with the RP group (115 vs 150 min), with a higher occurrence of intraoperative overall, 21 (5.0%) vs 9 (2.1%); p = 0.03, and surgical complications, 18 (4.3%) vs 7 (1.7%); p = 0.04. Concerning postoperative variables, the two groups resulted comparable in terms of complications, positive surgical margins and renal function, even if the RP group recorded a shorter median drainage duration and hospital length of stay (3 vs 2 for both variables), p < 0.0001.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that both TP and RP are feasible approaches when performing MI-PN, irrespectively from tumor location or surgical complexity. Notwithstanding longer operative times, RP seems to have a slighter intraoperative complication rate with earlier postoperative recovery when compared with TP.