Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy is safe and effective for complex renal masses when performed by experienced surgeons

Nephrometric scoring system: Recent advances and outlooks

A nephrometry scoring system is a key standard to evaluate the feasibility of partial nephrectomy (PN). Whether based on two-dimensional or three-dimensional images, simplicity, effectiveness, and practicality are the keys to the nephrometric scoring system. Since the emergence of RENAL score in 2009, numerous scoring systems based on different anatomical parameters are established to seek accurately and few parameters to assess the risk of PN and complications. This study aimed to achieve a three-game winning streak in PN more easily and efficiently (negative resection margin, maximum preservation of normal nephron function, and avoiding short-term and long-term complications). Using PubMed, we counted 28 kinds of nephrometric scoring systems. We considered only English literatures published and excluded editorials, commentaries, and meeting abstracts. To the best of our knowledge, this is to date and most comprehensive summary as well as an outlook of the nephrometric scoring system.

Utilizing head-mounted eye trackers to analyze patterns and decision-making strategies of 3D virtual modelling platform (IRIS™) during preoperative planning for renal cancer surgeries

PURPOSE

IRIS^™ provides interactive, 3D anatomical visualizations of renal anatomy for pre-operative planning that can be manipulated by altering transparency, rotating, zooming, panning, and overlaying the CT scan. Our objective was to analyze how eye tracking metrics and utilization patterns differ between preoperative surgical planning of renal masses using IRIS and CT scans.

METHODS

Seven surgeons randomly reviewed IRIS and CT images of 9 patients with renal masses [5 high complexity (RENAL score ≥ 8), 4 low complexity (≤ 7)]. Surgeons answered a series of questions regarding patient anatomy, perceived difficulty (/100), confidence (/100), and surgical plan. Eye tracking metrics (mean pupil diameter, number of fixations, and gaze duration) were collected.

RESULTS

Surgeons spent significantly less time interpreting data from IRIS than CT scans (- 67.1 s, p < 0.01) and had higher inter-rater agreement of surgical approach after viewing IRIS (α = 0.16-0.34). After viewing IRIS, surgical plans although not statistically significant demonstrated a greater tendency towards a more selective ischemia approaches which positively correlated with improved identification of vascular anatomy. Planned surgical approach changed in 22/59 of the cases. Compared to viewing the CT scan, left and right mean pupil diameter and number/duration of fixations were significantly lower when using IRIS (p < 0.01, p < 0.01, p = 0.42, p < 0.01, respectively), indicating interpreting information from IRIS required less mental effort despite under-utilizing its interactive features.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons extrapolated more detailed information in less time with less mental effort using IRIS than CT scans and proposed surgical approaches with potential to enhanced surgical outcomes.