Retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair, bicenter analysis with cost comparison using time-driven activity-based costing

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.

Is it possible to automate the discovery of process maps for the time-driven activity-based costing method? A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this manuscript was to identify the methods used to create process maps for care pathways that utilized the time-driven activity-based costing method.

METHODS

This is a systematic mapping review. Searches were performed in the Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic literature databases from 2004 to September 25, 2022. The included studies reported practical cases from healthcare institutions in all medical fields as long as the time-driven activity-based costing method was employed. We used the time-driven activity-based costing method and analyzed the created process maps and a qualitative approach to identify the main fields.

RESULTS

A total of 412 studies were retrieved, and 70 articles were included. Most of the articles are related to the fields of orthopedics and childbirth-related to hospital surgical procedures. We also identified various studies in the field of oncology and telemedicine services. The main methods for creating the process maps were direct observational practices, complemented by the involvement of multidisciplinary teams through surveys and interviews. Only 33% of the studies used hospital documents or healthcare data records to integrate with the process maps, and in 67% of the studies, the created maps were not validated by specialists.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of process mining techniques effectively automates models generated through clinical pathways. They are applied to the time-driven activity-based costing method, making the process more agile and contributing to the visualization of high degrees of variations encountered in processes, thereby making it possible to enhance and achieve continual improvements in processes.

A comparison of perioperative outcomes of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review

RAPN can be carried out via a transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach. The choice between the two approaches is open to debate and usually based on surgeon preference. The perioperative outcomes of transperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy versus retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy were compared. A systematic review of the literature was performed up to May 2020, using PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus and Ovid databases. Articles were selected according to a search strategy based on PRISMA criteria. Only studies comparing TRAPN with RRAPN were eligible for inclusion. Eleven studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Baseline demographics (age, BMI, ASA, tumour size, and RENAL nephrometry score), intraoperative data (operative time, estimated blood loss, and warm ischaemia time) and postoperative outcomes (major complications according to Clavien-Dindo, length of hospital stay (LOS) and positive surgical margin rate) were recorded. A total of 3139 patients were included (2052 TRAPN vs. 1087 RRAPN). There was no significant difference in demographic variables (age, BMI), tumour size (p = 0.06) nor the nephrometry score (p = 0.20) between the two groups. Operative time (p = 0.02), estimated blood loss (p < 0.00001) and LOS (p < 0.00001) were significantly lower in the RRAPN group. No differences were found in major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo > 3; p = 0.37), warm ischaemia time (p = 0.37) or positive surgical margins (p = 0.13). Future researchers must attempt to achieve adequately powered, expertise based, multi-surgeon and multi-centric studies comparing TRAPN and RRAPN. RRAPN gives similar outcomes to TRAPN. RRAPN is associated with reduced operative time and LOS. Ideally, surgeons should be familiar and competent in both RAPN approaches and adopt a risk-stratified and patient-centred individualised approach, dependent on the tumour and patient characteristics. RAPN is feasible via two approaches. The retroperitoneal approach seems to be associated with a shorter operation time and hospital stay.

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.

Last Resort from Nursing Shortage? Comparative Cost Analysis of Open vs. Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomies with a Focus on the Costs of Nursing Care

Despite perioperative advantages, robot-assisted surgery is associated with high costs. However, the lower morbidity of robotic surgery could lead to a lower nursing workload and cost savings. In this comparative cost analysis of open retroperitoneal versus robot-assisted transperitoneal partial nephrectomies (PN), these possible cost savings, including other cost factors, were quantified. Therefore, patient, tumor characteristics, and surgical results of all PN within two years at a tertiary referral center were retrospectively analyzed. The nursing effort was quantified by the local nursing staff regulation and INPULS^® intensive care and performance-recording system. Out of 259 procedures, 76.4% were performed robotically. After propensity score matching, the median total nursing time (2407.8 vs. 1126.8 min, p < 0.001) and daily nursing effort (245.7 vs. 222.6 min, p = 0.025) were significantly lower after robotic surgery. This resulted in mean savings of EUR 186.48 in nursing costs per robotic case, in addition to savings of EUR 61.76 due to less frequent administrations of erythrocyte concentrates. These savings did not amortize the higher material costs for the robotic system, causing additional expenses of EUR 1311.98 per case. To conclude, the nursing effort after a robotic partial nephrectomy was significantly lower compared to open surgery; however, this previously unnoticed savings mechanism alone could not amortize the overall increased costs.

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.

Analyses of operative time according to procedure phases during robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy using the iPhone application "My Intuitives"

PURPOSE

We investigated operative time according to procedure phases in robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and identify variables associated with longer operative time in each procedure phase.

METHODS

This retrospective, single-center study included 108 patients who underwent RAPN conducted by an experienced surgeon. Operative time was divided into dissection, resection, tumor bed suture, and renorrhaphy and hemostasis phases, which were derived from the iPhone application "My Intuitives." Multivariate analyses were performed to identify possible predictors such as sex, body mass index, tumor complexity, and surgical approach for longer operative time in each phase.

RESULTS

The median console time was 65 min, and median operative times in dissection, resection, tumor bed suture, and renorrhaphy and hemostasis phases were 41, 8, 9, and 8 min, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, longer console time was observed in high complexity tumors (vs. low, OR: 8.01, 95% CI: 1.94-33.0) and transperitoneal approach (vs. retroperitoneal approach, OR: 3.62, 95% CI: 1.94-33.0). High complexity tumors were significantly associated with longer operative time in all procedure phases, and the male sex was associated with a longer operative time in the dissection phase than the female sex (OR: 3.61, 95% CI: 1.18-11.0).

CONCLUSION

The identified significant predictive factors associated with longer operative time were the male sex and high complexity in the dissection phase, high complexity in the resection phase, in the tumor bed suture phase as well as in the renorrhaphy and hemostasis phase. These findings may help to predict the difficulty of performing RAPN in terms of operative time.

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.

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.

Robotic-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: Techniques to Improve Clinical Outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize current options available for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy RECENT FINDINGS: Partial nephrectomy (PN) is a standard treatment option for management of cT1 renal masses. It may be carried out by multiple approaches. Robot-assisted (RA) PN is one such option. The goal of treatment is both correct oncological (negative surgical margins) and functional (preservation of sufficient amount of renal parenchyma of the operated kidney) outcome. Appropriate outcomes depend on multiple factors. There are many, but among others tumor characteristics (size, location, i.e., tumor complexity), patient baseline renal function, patient comorbidities, and performance status etc. Based on all these, the surgeon adapts the intervention for each mass/patient by preoperative planning, absence/use/duration of warm or cold ischemia, perioperative imaging, resection technique adapted to tumor location and depth of invasion, use of hemostatics, type and degree of renal parenchymal closure and others details. Nephroprotective agents have not shown efficacy so far. It should not be forgotten that surgeon's experience plays a key role in the achievement of good results. Although multiple factors have a role in the RA partial nephrectomy, surgeon experience and adaptation of technique of intervention have the crucial role in the achievement of both functional and oncological results.

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 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.

The future of "Retro" robotic partial nephrectomy

Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the gold standard treatment for appropriately selected renal masses. Recent surgical advancements and adoption of the robotic technique has led to greater adoption of nephron-sparing surgery. Robotic PN was initially described via the transperitoneal (TP) approach, however, retroperitoneal (RP) access is possible and in some cases more desirable. In the RP approach, the kidney is accessed from its posterior surface and the intraperitoneal space is avoided. The RP approach to PN has the benefit of avoiding intraperitoneal viscera and colonic mobilization in patients with extensive prior abdominal surgery. The technique also eliminates the need for renal unit rotation in patients with posterior tumors and affords access to masses directly posterior to the renal hilum. The RP and TP approach to PN have shown similar oncologic and perioperative outcomes. Several recent studies have reported shorter operative times and lengths of stay (LOS) with comparable warm ischemia times for the RP approach when compared to transperitoneal PN (tPN). Given the indispensable deliverables of this approach in select patients, robotic retroperitoneal PN (rPN) should be in the armamentarium of a versatile urologic kidney surgeon. This review describes the current state of rPN and compares the indications and outcomes of the TP and RP approaches.

Retroperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for posterior located renal tumours: Technique and early term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, the trans-peritoneal approach is preferred for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN). However, retroperitoneal RPN (RP-RPN) has recently become widespread because of the advantages of easier access to the hilum, ease dissection of posterior tumours, and lower probability of intra-peritoneal organ injury. We aimed to present our initial experience of the RP-RPN series in posteriorly located renal tumours.

METHODS

Twenty-one patients were included in the study, who underwent RP-RPN by a single surgeon between July 2019 and January 2020. RP-RPN was carried out only in posteriorly located renal tumours with ischemic (on-clamp) or zero ischemic (off-clamp) techniques. Patients with solitary kidney and a history of previous retroperitoneal surgery in the lumbodorsal region were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

All cases completed without any operative complication and conversion to open or radical nephrectomy. Seven cases were completed as zero ischemic and 14 cases as ischemic technique. The mean operation time was 157.86 ± 64.24 minutes and estimated blood loss was 173.81 ± 136.84 mL. The mean warm ischemia time was 15.81 ± 12.42 minutes. Positive surgical margin observed in 4.8% of the patients. The mean length of stay was 3.33 ± 0.79 days. The mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) change in the 3rd postoperative month was -3.71 ± 8.57 ml/min/1.73 m² (4.6%). Mean follow-up period was 10.29 ± 4.86 months. New-onset stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease (eGFR < 60 m /min/1.73m² ) was not observed during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

RP-RPN is a safe and feasible approach with acceptable oncological and functional results. We think that RP-RPN can be applied as an alternative to the trans-peritoneal approach for selected cases, especially in renal tumours with the posterior location.

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.

Single overnight stay after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a bi-center experience

BACKGROUND

Despite hospital length of stay (LOS) being shorter for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) compared to its open counterpart, several series in the literature report on average a LOS of 2-3 days or more. We aimed to assess factors predicting a prolonged length of stay (beyond a single overnight stay) in patients undergoing RAPN.

METHODS

Patients who underwent RAPN between 2010 and 2019 at two USA Centers were included and divided into two groups according to LOS: the study group included all patients who were discharged on POD1, whereas the control group included patients with LOS ≥2 days. Demographics, surgical and perioperative outcomes were compared between the groups. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors of LOS ≥2.

RESULTS

Overall, 173 (60.5%) patients discharged on POD1, and 113 (39.5%) discharged on POD≥2. Patients in the study group presented a lower mean BMI (29 vs. 32, P=0.02). Retroperitoneal approach was performed in 13.3% patients with shorter LOS (P<0.001). There was a statistically significant difference in median OT (144 vs. 168 min, P=0.005) and WIT (19 vs. 23 min, P=0.001). We observed six postoperative complications (3.6%) in patients discharged on POD1 and 35 (30.5%) in control group (P<0.001). Major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III) were observed in three of POD1 patients (1.8 vs. 6.1%, P<0.001). There was no difference in hospital readmission rate. On logistic regression analysis, independent predictors of prolonged LOS were OT (OR=1.01, 95% CI: 1.0-1.2, P=0.001), and occurrence of a postoperative complication (OR=2.2, 95% CI: 2.0-2.5, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings confirm that a single overnight stay after RAPN is feasible and safe. In our experience, and within the limitations of the present analysis, prolonged operative time and occurrence of immediate postoperative complications translate into higher risk of prolonged hospital stay. Besides adopting a minimally invasive approach, surgeons should also implement perioperative care pathways facilitating early discharge without increasing the risk of readmission.

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.

Advances in Value-Based Healthcare by the Application of Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing for Inpatient Management: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Implementation of value-based initiatives depends on cost-assessment methods that can provide high-quality cost information. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) is increasingly being used to solve the cost-information gap. This study aimed to review the use of the TDABC methodology in real-world settings and to estimate its impact on the value-based healthcare concept for inpatient management.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted by screening PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus databases following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, including all studies up to August 2019. The use of TDABC for inpatient management was the main eligibility criterion. A qualitative approach was used to analyze the different methodological aspects of TDABC and its effective contribution to the implementation of value-based initiatives.

RESULTS

A total of 1066 studies were retrieved, and 26 full-text articles were selected for review. Only studies focused on surgical inpatient conditions were identified. Most of the studies reported the types of activities on a macrolevel. Professional and structural cost variables were usually assessed. Eighteen studies reported that TDABC contributed to value-based initiatives, especially cost-saving findings. TDABC was satisfactorily applied to achieve value-based contributions in all the studies that used the method for this purpose.

CONCLUSIONS

TDABC could be a strategy for increasing cost accuracy in real-world settings, and the method could help in the transition from fee-for-service to value-based systems. The results could provide a clearer idea of the costs, help with resource allocation and waste reduction, and might support clinicians and managers in increasing value in a more accurate and transparent way.

Comparisons of surgical outcomes between transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches in robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for lateral renal tumors: a propensity score-matched comparative analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the surgical outcomes between the transperitoneal (TP) and retroperitoneal (RP) approaches in robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for lateral tumors.

METHODS

This study included patients who underwent RAPN for lateral renal tumors between 2013 and 2019. Lateral tumors were defined as X of A factors in the RENAL nephrometry score. In total, 290 and 48 patients with TP and RP, respectively, were included in the analysis. To minimize the effects of selection bias, the following variables were adjusted using 1:1 propensity score matching: age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate, tumor size, and RENAL nephrometry score.

RESULTS

After matching, 48 patients were allocated to each group. The mean age was 55 years, and the mean preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 68-69 mL/min/1.73 m². The mean tumor size was 30-31 mm. The RP group had a shorter operative time (124 vs. 151 min, p = 0.0002), shorter console time (74 vs. 110 min, p < 0.0001), shorter warm ischemic time (14 vs. 17 min, p = 0.0343), lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (33 vs. 52 ml, p = 0.0002), and shorter postoperative length of hospital stay (PLOS) (3.3 vs. 4.0 days, p < 0.0001) than the TP group. The change in eGFR, incidence rate of perioperative complication, and positive surgical margin rate did not significantly differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RP had better surgical outcomes, including shorter operative time, lower EBL, and shorter PLOS for lateral renal tumors, which may suggest that RP is the optimal approach for selected lateral renal tumors.

Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy: evolving techniques and expanding considerations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) continues to gain popularity in the setting of nephron-sparing surgery for small renal masses. Although the recent introduction of technological advancements has allowed for expanded roles for RAPN, the optimal techniques and approaches to the procedure remain controversial.

RECENT FINDINGS

Of recent interest has been the role of warm ischemia time and its impact on postoperative renal function. Available studies suggest that although warm ischemia time remains an independent and modifiable risk factor for postoperative renal function, the role for 'zero ischemia' RAPN is still unclear. Recent studies on complex and/or larger tumors have demonstrated the feasibility of the procedure with comparable short-term outcomes to the open approach. Although these results should currently be considered experimental, they do shed light on the growing role for RAPN. Surgeon comfort and tumor location remain important factors when determining a retroperitoneal or transperitoneal approach. Available research demonstrates shorter operative times, length of stay and potentially lower costs to the retroperitoneal approach.

SUMMARY

Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy remains an evolving procedure. Although recent literature suggests the feasibility of new and novel techniques, variable approaches and expanded indications, prospective, long-term follow-up data are needed before a consensus can be reached.

Assessing Cost-Effectiveness of New Technologies in Stone Management

Diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up are all influential in determining the overall cost to the health care system for kidney stones. New innovations in the field of nephrolithiasis have been abundant, including disposable ureteroscopes, ultrasound-guided approaches to percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and advanced laser lithotripters. Identifying cost-effective treatment strategies encourages practitioners to be thoughtful about providing value-based high-quality care and remains on important principle in the treatment of urinary stone disease.

Retroperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: Systematic Review and Cumulative Analysis of Comparative Outcomes

OBJECTIVES

To compare the outcomes of retroperitoneal vs transperitoneal approach for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed through January 2018 using PubMed, Scopus, and Ovid databases. Article selection proceeded according to the search strategy based on PRISMA criteria. Only studies comparing retroperitoneal to transperitoneal approach for RAPN were deemed eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

Seven retrospective case-control studies were identified and included in the analysis, with a total number of 1379 patients (866 for transperitoneal group; 513 for retroperitoneal group). In the retroperitoneal group, tumors were slightly larger [weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.29 cm; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.04-0.54; p = 0.02], and more frequently located posterior/lateral (odds ratio: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.41-0.90; p = 0.01). In two of the studies only posterior tumors had been included. Both operating time (WMD 20.17 min; 95% CI 6.46-33.88; p = 0.004) and estimated blood loss (WMD 54.57 mL; 95% CI 6.73-102.4; p = 0.03) were significantly lower in the retroperitoneal group. In addition, length of stay was significantly shorter in the retroperitoneal group (WMD 0.46 days; CI 95% 0.15-0.76; p = 0.003). No differences were found regarding overall (p = 0.67) and major (p = 0.82) postoperative complications, warm ischemia time (p = 0.96), and positive surgical margins (p = 0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

Retroperitoneal RAPN can offer in select patients similar outcomes to those of the most common transperitoneal RAPN. Furthermore, it may be particularly advantageous for posterior upper pole and perihilar tumors and associated with reduction in operative time and hospital stay. Robotic surgeons should be ideally familiar with both approaches to adapt their surgical strategy to confront renal neoplasms from a position of technical advantage and ultimately optimize outcomes.