CAMS 2005 PC Co-chairs' Message

A. Hinze,G. Buchanan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11575863_27

2005-10-31

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Single-Port Versus Multi-Port Robotic Retroperitoneal Partial Nephrectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison

Seokhwan Bang,Jiwoong Yu,Hoyoung Bae,Dongho Shin,Yong Hyun Park,Hyuk Jin Cho,U-Syn Ha,Ji Youl Lee,Sung-Hoo Hong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2024.0493

2024-10-24

Abstract:Objective: To compare the surgical results of retroperitoneal (RP) robot partial nephrectomy (PNx) using either a single-port robot (SP) or a multi-port robot (MP). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all RP robotic PNx performed at a single institution from September 2021-when the SP robot was introduced to the institution-through April 2023. In total, 125 patients underwent the surgery; 81 patients were treated with surgery using a MP robot whereas 44 patients were treated with surgery using a SP. All MP surgeries were performed with da Vinci Xi (Intuitive, Sunnyvale, California, USA), while all SP surgeries were performed with da Vinci SP (Intuitive, Sunnyvale, California, USA). We performed a propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis of these 125 patients. Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups after PSM. In terms of operation time, that for MP was 103.68 ± 21.89 minutes whereas that for SP was 95.43 ± 32.22 minutes (p-value = 0.164). Meanwhile, in terms of console time, that for MP was 70.95 ± 21.92 minutes whereas that for SP was 64.14 ± 32.06 minutes (p-value = 0.248). In terms of estimated blood loss was 90.91 ± 91.06 mL in MP and 92.27 ± 104.30 mL in SP (p-value = 0.948). Lastly, there was a statistically significant difference in warm ischemic time, as it was 17.18 ± 6.56 minutes in MP and 13.82 ± 4.59 in SP (p-value = 0.007). There were no statistically significant differences between MP and SP in any other surgical outcomes. Conclusions: SP robot RP PNx demonstrated comparable outcomes to those achieve using MP procedures. This means SP robot RP PNx can be considered a preferable and more convenient surgical approach than conventional methods, particularly when dealing with small renal masses located in the posterior side of the kidney.
Single-port vs multi-port robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: A single center propensity score-matched analysis

Leslie Claire Licari,Eugenio Bologna,Antonio Franco,Francesco Ditonno,Celeste Manfredi,Jonathan Huang,Kalyan Latchamsetty,Christopher Coogan,Ephrem O. Olweny,Edward E. Cherullo,Alexander K. Chow,Srinivas Vourganti,Riccardo Autorino

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108011

IF: 4.037

2024-02-16

European Journal of Surgical Oncology

Abstract:Introduction and objectives The aim of the study is to compare key outcomes of Single-Port (SP) and Multi-Port (MP) robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on our prospectively collected database of patients who underwent SP-RAPN or MP-RAPN at our institution from January 2021 to August 2023. To adjust for potential baseline pre-operative confounders, a 1:1 propensity-score matching analysis (PSMa) was performed. The primary endpoint was to compare perioperative outcomes between the two groups. The secondary endpoint was to compare the achievement of the "Trifecta" outcome (defined as negative surgical margins, absence of high-grade complications and change in eGFR values (ΔeGFR) < 10% at 6 months follow-up) in the matched cohort. Results After PSMa, 30 SP cases were matched 1:1 to 30 MP cases. In the matched cohort, there were no significant differences between SP and MP approaches in operative time, estimated blood loss, ischemia time, transfusions rate, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and positive surgical margin rates. Patients who underwent SP-RAPN had a shorter median length of stay [25 (IQR:24.0–34.5) vs 34 (IQR:30.2–48.0) hours, p < 0.003]. The Trifecta outcome was achieved in 16 (57%) of SP patients and 17 (63%) of MP patients (p = 0.8). Conclusions SP-RAPN can be safely implemented in a Center with an established MP-RAPN program. Despite being early in the SP-RAPN experience, key surgical outcomes are not compromised. While offering comparable perioperative and short-term functional outcomes, SP-RAPN can translate into faster recovery and shorter LOS, paving the way for outpatient robotic surgery.

oncology,surgery
Single-Port Versus Multiport Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Meta-Analysis

Tuan Thanh Nguyen,Xuan Thai Ngo,Nguyen x Duong,Ryan W Dobbs,Huy Gia Vuong,David-Dan Nguyen,Jacob Basilius,Narmina Khanmammadova,Dinno Francis Andaya Mendiola,Tien-Dat Hoang,Dang Nhat Minh Pham,An Nguyen,Tuyet Mai Tran Thi,Sohrab Ali,Mohammed Shahait,David I Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2023.0505

2024-01-09

Journal of Endourology

Abstract:Background Several centers have reported their experience with single-port robotic partial nephrectomy (SP-RAPN) however, it is uncertain if utilization of this platform represents an improvement in outcomes as compared to multiport robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (MP-RAPN). To evaluate this, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes between SP-RAPN and MP-RAPN. Methods For relevant articles, three electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, were searched from their inception until January 1, 2023. A meta-analysis has been reported in line with PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR Guidelines. The odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference (MD) were applied for the comparison of dichotomous and continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results Of the 374 retrieved abstracts, eight studies were included in the final analysis, comprising a total cohort of 1,007 cases of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (453 SP-RAPN cases and 554 MP-RAPN cases). Compared to MP-RARP, the SP-RAPN group had a significantly longer ischemia time (MD = 4.6 minutes, 95% CI 2.8 to 6.3, p<0.001), less estimated blood loss (MD = -12.4 mL, 95% CI -24.6 to -0.3, p=0.045), higher blood transfusion rate (OR = 2.97, 95% CI 1.33 to 6.65, p=0.008), and higher postoperative eGFR at 6 months (MD = 4.9 mL/min, 95% CI 0.2 to 9.7, p=0.04). There were no significant differences in other outcomes between the two approaches, including the intraoperative complication, minor postoperative complication (Clavien-Dindo I-II), major postoperative complication (Clavien-Dindo III-V), conversion to radical nephrectomy, pain score at day #1, pain score on discharge, morphine milligram equivalent (MME) usage, hospital stay, positive surgical margins and postoperative eGFR. Conclusions Initial studies have demonstrated that SP-RAPN is a safe and feasible approach to performing partial nephrectomy, albeit with inferior outcomes for ischemia time and blood transfusion rates.

urology & nephrology
Single Port Modified Partial Nephrectomy: Novel Simultaneous Access to Peritoneal and Retroperitoneal Partial Nephrectomy, Initial Clinical Experience

Mubashir Shabil Billah,Fahad Sheckley,Jennifer Nguyen,Teona Iarajuli,Michael Raver,Benjamin Rudnick,Mutahar Ahmed

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2023.0502

2024-02-08

Journal of Endourology

Abstract:Introduction and Objective: Since its FDA approval in 2018, Intuitive Surgical DaVinci Single Port (SP) robotic platform has been a successfully used technology for multiple urological procedures. The purpose of this study is to share our early intraoperative and perioperative outcomes and potential benefits for performing a lower anterior retroperitoneal access (LARA) incision for single-port robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (SP-RAPN). The LARA incision enables performing a trans- or retroperitoneal approach through the same incision and eases the transition to a retroperitoneal approach. Methods: This study is a prospective review of 78 SP Partial Nephrectomy cases between 03/2021 and 01/2023 by an experienced robotic surgeon. A single 2-3 cm oblique incision parallel to the external oblique muscle, one-third of the distance between the iliac crest and umbilicus, was used to insert the multichannel port to perform the RAPN. We extracted intra- and perioperative data of these patients to share the outcomes of this approach. Results: SP-RAPN was successfully completed in 78 patients (38 females and 40 males) without conversion to open or laparoscopic techniques. The mean age was 61.2 ± 12.1 years. The mean tumor size was 3.0 ± 1.2 cm, 43 were right-sided masses, and 35 were left-sided. The R.E.N.A.L Nephrometry score ranged from (4-11) with an average of 7.0 ± 1.9. Average operating room time was 90.5 ± 24.6 min, estimated blood loss was 88.3 ± 134 ml and length of stay of 1.07 ± 0.7 days. 40/78 cases required clamping of the renal artery with average warm ischemia time 19.4 ± 6.7 min in patients who underwent clamping. No complications in all of 78 patients. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility and reproducibility of SP-RAPN using a LARA incision. This incision provides a standardized approach for surgeons to transition to the retroperitoneal approach using the SP platform.

urology & nephrology
Retroperitoneal robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors: a matched comparison of perioperative outcomes of a single surgeon

XU Yifan,XIA Dan,MENG Hongzhou,QIN Jie,KONG Debo,JING Taile,YE Sunyi,LAI Chong,WANG Shuo,WANG Ping

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12180/j.issn.2096-7721.2023.04.004

2023-01-01

Abstract:Objective: To compare the perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy(LPN) and retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) by matched analysis using R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scoring system. Methods: Relevant clinical data of 543 case of laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy performed by a single surgeon via the RP approach from January 2016 to March 2020 from our database were screened and analyzed. Two groups were matched 1:1 (112 matched pairs) by R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score, gender, and age. Statistical analysis was done to compare perioperative outcomes. Results: There was no significant difference between the LPN group and RPN group in terms of age, gender, body mass index (BMI), tumor size, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score or preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Patients undergoing LPN had a slightly higher proportion of the left side tumor (51.7％ Vs 42.9％, P=0.032). No significant differences regarding to operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative LOS, postoperative eGFR, transfusion or postoperative complications were found between the two groups. However, Warm ischemia times (WIT) in the RPN group were significantly shorter than that in the LPN group (18.9 min Vs 22.6 min, P=0.032). Subset analysis based on complexity indicated that WIT of complex tumors in the RPN group was significantly shorter than that in the LPN group (21.1 min Vs 26.3 min, P=0.012), but no difference of WIT was found on simple tumors between the RPN group and LPN group (16.4 min Vs 18.3 min, P=0.085). Conclusion: Retroperitoneal RPN showed shorter WIT and generally equivalent perioperative results to retroperitoneal LPN. Robotic surgery may have advantages over the traditional laparoscopic surgery on complex tumor excision and renorrhaphy in the limited retroperitoneal space.
Single-Port Extraperitoneal vs. Multiport Transperitoneal Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Jaya S. Chavali,Adriana M. Pedraza,Nicolas A. Soputro,Roxana Ramos-Carpinteyro,Carter D. Mikesell,Jihad Kaouk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16172994

2024-08-30

Cancers

Abstract:(1) Background: Since the introduction of the purpose-built Single Port (SP) robotic platform, there has been an ongoing debate regarding its advantages compared to the established multi-port (MP) system. The goal of this present study is to compare the perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of SP Extraperitoneal robotic radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus that of MP Transperitoneal RARP approach at a high-volume tertiary center. (2) Methods: Based on a retrospective review of the prospectively maintained IRB-approved database, 925 patients successfully underwent RARP by a single experienced robotic surgeon. A 4:1 propensity-matched analysis based on the baseline prostate cancer International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group, clinical stage, and preoperative Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) was performed, which yielded a cohort of 606 patients—485 in the SP EP and 121 in the MP TP approaches. Of note, the SP EP approach also included the traditional Extraperitoneal (n = 259, 53.4%) and the novel Transvesical (TV) approaches (n = 226, 46.6%). (3) Results: The overall operative time was slightly longer in the SP cohort, with a mean of 198.9 min compared to 181.5 min for the MP group (p < 0.001). There were no intraoperative complications with the MP approach and only one during the SP approach. The SP EP technique demonstrated significant benefits, encompassing reduced intraoperative blood loss (SP 125.1 vs. MP 215.9 mL), shorter length of hospital stay (SP 12.6 vs. MP 31.9 h), reduced opioid use at the time of discharge (SP 14.4% vs. MP 85.1%), and an earlier Foley catheter removal (SP 6 vs. MP 8 days). From an oncological perspective, the rate of positive surgical margins remained comparable across both groups (p = 0.84). Regarding functional outcomes, the mean continence rates and Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) scores were identical between the two groups at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months respectively. (4) Conclusion: SP EP RARP demonstrates similar performance to MP TP RARP in terms of oncologic and functional outcomes. However, SP EP RARP offers several advantages in reducing the overall hospital stay, decreasing postoperative pain and hence the overall opioid use, as well as shortening the time to catheter removal, all of which translates to reduced morbidity and facilitates the transition to outpatient surgery.

oncology
Perioperative and functional outcomes of single-port versus multi-port robotic-assisted radical cystectomy: evidence-based on controlled studies

Li Wang,Si-Yu Chen,Jian-Wei Yang,Kun-Peng Li,Shun Wan,Xiao-Ran Li,Li Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-02094-3

2024-09-23

Abstract:To compare perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) using a single-port (SP) or multi-port (MP) robotic platform. We conducted a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases until June 2024. For a combined analysis of the data using random effects, Review Manager 5.4 was employed. To compare continuous and categorical variables, the weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) were employed, respectively. Three original studies were included, comprising a total of 170 patients (SP-RARC: 73 versus MP-RARC: 93).Recovery of bowel function was faster in SP-RARC (WMD -1.02 days, 95% CI - 1.33 to - 0.17; p < 0.001), and lymph-node yield was lower than in MP-RARC patients (WMD - 6.32, 95% CI - 8.90 to - 3.75; p < 0.00001).There were no significant differences between the SP-RARC and MP-RARC groups in terms of other perioperative outcomes such as surgery duration, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, major complication rate, positive surgical margin rate, readmission rate, and recurrence rate. The SP robot offers a safe alternative surgical approach to RARC, providing similar postoperative outcomes compared to the MP robot. The SP system remains an attractive option that will require longer follow-up and cohort validation in the future.
Caffeine suppresses exercise-enhanced long-term and location memory in middle-aged rats: Involvement of hippocampal Akt and CREB signaling.

José L Cechella,M. R. Leite,J. T. da Rocha,Fernando Dobrachinski,B. M. Gai,F. Soares,G. Bresciani,L. Royes,G. Zeni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2014.09.001

IF: 5.168

2014-11-05

Chemico-Biological Interactions

Abstract:
Comparison of peri- and intraoperative outcomes of open vs robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a propensity-matched analysis

Benedikt Hoeh,Mike Wenzel,Olivia Eckart,Felicia Fleisgarten,Cristina Cano Garcia,Jens Köllermann,Christoph Würnschimmel,Alessandro Larcher,Pierre Karakiewicz,Luis A Kluth,Felix K H Chun,Philipp Mandel,Andreas Becker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-023-03061-2

2023-06-22

Abstract:Background: Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the gold standard surgical treatment for resectable renal cell carcinoma (RCC) tumors. However, the decision whether a robotic (RAPN) or open PN (OPN) approach is chosen is often based on the surgeon's individual experience and preference. To overcome the inherent selection bias when comparing peri- and postoperative outcomes of RAPN vs. OPN, a strict statistical methodology is needed. Materials and methods: We relied on an institutional tertiary-care database to identify RCC patients treated with RAPN and OPN between January 2003 and January 2021. Study endpoints were estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications, and trifecta. In the first step of analyses, descriptive statistics and multivariable regression models (MVA) were applied. In the second step of analyses, to validate initial findings, MVA were applied after 2:1 propensity-score matching (PSM). Results: Of 615 RCC patients, 481 (78%) underwent OPN vs 134 (22%) RAPN. RAPN patients were younger and presented with a smaller tumor diameter and lower RENAL-Score sum, respectively. Median EBL was comparable, whereas LOS was shorter in RAPN vs. OPN. Both intraoperative (27 vs 6%) and Clavien-Dindo > 2 complications (11 vs 3%) were higher in OPN (both < 0.05), whereas achievement of trifecta was higher in RAPN (65 vs 54%; p = 0.028). In MVA, RAPN was a significant predictor for shorter LOS, lower rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications as well as higher trifecta rates. After 2:1 PSM with subsequent MVA, RAPN remained a statistical and clinical predictor for lower rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications and higher rates of trifecta achievement but not LOS. Conclusions: Differences in baseline and outcome characteristics exist between RAPN vs. OPN, probably due to selection bias. However, after applying two sets of statistical analyses, RAPN seems to be associated with more favorable outcomes regarding complications and trifecta rates.
Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection: A Comparison Among Extraperitoneal Single-port and Transperitoneal Multiport Radical Prostatectomy-A Single-center Experience

Greta Pettenuzzo,Francesco Ditonno,Donato Cannoletta,Matteo Pacini,Luca Morgantini,Ruben Calvo Sauer,Juan R Torres-Anguiano,Francesco Montorsi,Alberto Briganti,Riccardo Bartoletti,Alessandro Veccia,Riccardo Bertolo,Alessandro Antonelli,Simone Crivellaro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2024.07.110

2024-08-12

Abstract:Background and objective: The role of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) for prostate cancer is still controversial. This study aims to compare the outcomes of PLND between extraperitoneal single-port (SP eRARP) and transperitoneal multiport (MP tRARP) robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis from our single-center database for patients who underwent SP eRARP or MP tRARP with PLND between 2015 and 2023. The primary endpoint was to analyze and compare specific data related to PLND between the two populations by the detection of pN+ patients, the total number of lymph nodes removed, and the number of positive lymph nodes removed. The secondary endpoints included comparing major complications, lymphoceles, and biochemical recurrence between the two cohorts of the study. Key findings and limitations: A total of 293 patients were included, with 85 (29%) undergoing SP eRARP and 208 (71%) undergoing MP tRARP. SP eRARP showed significant differences in PLND extension from MP tRARP, while MP tRARP yielded more lymph nodes (p < 0.001). There were no differences in pN+ patient detection (p = 0.7) or the number of positive lymph nodes retrieved (p = 0.6). The rates of major complications (p = 0.6), lymphoceles (p = 0.2), and biochemical recurrence (p = 0.9) were similar between the two groups. Additionally, SP eRARP had shorter operative time (p = 0.045), hospital stay (p < 0.001), and less postoperative pain at discharge (p = 0.03). Limitations include a retrospective, single-center analysis. Conclusions and clinical implications: Despite the SP approach in RARP resulting in fewer retrieved lymph nodes, outcomes were comparable with the MP approach regarding the detection of patients with positive lymph nodes and the number of positive nodes. Additionally, the SP approach led to lower pain levels and shorter hospital stays. Patient summary: With this study, we demonstrate that pelvic lymph node dissection performed via the extraperitoneal approach during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy with a single-port system provides comparable outcomes with the standard transperitoneal multiport approach in detecting patients with positive lymph nodes and retrieving positive nodes. In addition, it offers significantly reduced pain levels and shorter hospital stays.
Perioperative and Long-Term Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review

Amber B. Tang,Margherita Lamaina,Christopher P. Childers,Selene S. Mak,Qiao Ruan,Meron M. Begashaw,Jonathan Bergman,Marika S. Booth,Paul G. Shekelle,Mark Wilson,William Gunnar,Melinda Maggard-Gibbons,Mark D. Girgis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0003134820948912

2020-09-09

The American Surgeon

Abstract:Background Adoption of the robotic surgical platform for small renal cancers has rapidly expanded, but its utility compared to other approaches has not been established. The objective of this review is to assess perioperative and long-term oncologic and functional outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) compared to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN). Methods A search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane (2010-2019) was conducted. Of 3877 articles screened, 7 observational studies were included. Results RAPN was associated with 24-50 mL less intraoperative blood loss compared to LPN and 39-84 mL less than OPN. RAPN also demonstrated trends of other postoperative benefits, such as shorter length of stay and fewer major complications. Several studies reported better long-term functional kidney outcomes, but these findings were inconsistent. Recurrence and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were similar across groups. While RAPN had a 5-year CSS of 90.1%-97.9%, LPN and OPN had survival rates of 85.9%-86.9% and 88.5-96.3% respectively. Conclusions RAPN may be associated with a lower estimated blood loss and comparable long-term outcomes when compared to other surgical approaches. However, additional randomized or propensity matched studies are warranted to fully assess long-term functional kidney and oncologic outcomes.
Outpatient Robotic Urological Surgery: An Evidence-based Analysis

Angelo Orsini,Francesco Lasorsa,Gabriele Bignante,Michele Marchioni,Luigi Schips,Giuseppe Lucarelli,Francesco Porpiglia,Jihad H Kaouk,Simone Crivellaro,Riccardo Autorino

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2024.10.003

2024-10-19

Abstract:Background and objective: One of the primary advantages of minimally invasive surgery is the shorter hospitalization time, which can potentially allow "outpatient" (OP) procedures. The recent advent of single-port (SP) robotics has further fueled the debate on this topic. We sought to provide an evidence-based analysis of the safety, feasibility, and advantages of robotic urological surgery in the OP setting. Methods: A literature search in PubMed was conducted in June 2024 to identify studies on the feasibility and safety of OP robotic urological surgery. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria and the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome model were used to select retrospective and prospective studies. Data collected included patient characteristics, operative outcomes, same-day discharge (SDD), and complication and readmission rates. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data analysis and synthesis were performed using Review Manager and GraphPad Prism. Key findings and limitations: For 3291 patients in noncomparative studies, we found SDD rates of 46.17% for multiport (MP) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), 77.35% for SP-RARP, 93.1% for robot-assisted radical or partial nephrectomy, and 93.3% for adrenalectomy. Among comparative studies involving 4130 patients, we found that the OP setting is feasible and safe. Comparison of overall complications between OP and inpatients (IP) settings revealed a relative risk (RR) of 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48-0.91; p = 0.01) favoring OP. The risk of readmission was lower risk for OP than for IP surgery (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33-0.85; p = 0.008). Comparison of MP-RARP and SP-RARP revealed that OP protocols are more easily achievable with SP-RARP (44.20% vs 79.59%; p < 0.001). Conclusions and clinical implications: OP robotic urological surgery is feasible and safe in selected patients and can enhance satisfaction and reduce costs. SP robotics could promote wider adoption of SDD protocols. Strict case selection minimizes complications. Differences in health care systems should be considered in future evaluations. Patient summary: We examined the feasibility and safety of same-day hospital discharge after robot-assisted surgery for urology operations. We found that this option can be safely offered and may be even more viable if the use of robots allowing surgery through a single keyhole incision becomes more widespread.
Single port robot‐assisted pyeloplasty: An early comparative outcomes analysis

Francesco Ditonno,Antonio Franco,Celeste Manfredi,Carol L. Feng,Eugenio Bologna,Leslie Claire Licari,Ephrem O. Olweny,Srinivas Vourganti,Edward E. Cherullo,Alexander K. Chow,Riccardo Autorino

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.2622

2024-02-01

Abstract:Abstract Background The treatment paradigm for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) has shifted towards minimally invasive pyeloplasty. A comparison Single Port (SP) and Multi Port (MP) robot‐assisted pyeloplasty (RAP) was performed. Methods Data from consecutive patients undergoing SP RAP or MP RAP between January 2021 and September 2023 were collected and analysed. Co‐primary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale (DVPRS), and narcotic dose. The choice of the robotic system depended on the surgeon's preference and availability of a specific robotic platform. Results A total of 10 SP RAPs and 12 MP RAPs were identified. SP RAP patients were significantly younger [23 years (20–34)] than MP RAP [42 years (35.5–47.5), p < 0.01]. No difference in terms of OT ( p = 0.6), LOS ( p = 0.1), DVPRS ( p = 0.2) and narcotic dose ( p = 0.1) between the two groups was observed. Conclusions SP RAP can be implemented without compromising surgical outcomes and potentially offering some clinical advantages.

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

Jing Zhou,Zheng‐Huan Liu,De‐Hong Cao,Zhu‐Feng Peng,Pan Song,Luchen Yang,Liang‐Ren Liu,Qiang Wei,Qiang Dong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3888

IF: 4.711

2021-05-01

Cancer Medicine

Abstract:<section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Purpose</h3><p>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.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Methods</h3><p>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.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Results</h3><p>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; <i>p</i> < 0.01) and PLOS (WMD −0.46 days; 95% CI −0.69, −0.23; <i>p</i> < 0.01) were shorter in RP‐RAPN. Besides, lower EBL (WMD −21.67; 95% CI −29.74, −13.60; <i>p</i> < 0.05) was also found in RP‐RAPN. Meanwhile, no significant differences were found in other outcomes. </p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Conclusions</h3><p>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.</p></section>

oncology
Comparison of Single Port Robotic Donor Nephrectomy and Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

Michael A. Palese,Chih Peng Chin,Evan B. Garden,Benjamin Eilender,Micah Levy,Krishna T. Ravivarapu,Daniel Wang,Hannah Freid,Osama Al-Alao,Joseph Sewell Araya,Dianne LaPointe-Rudow,Daniel Herron,Edward Chin,Antonios Arvelakis,Ron Shapiro,Francisca Larenas,Sander S. Florman,Michael A Palese,Evan Garden,Krishna Teja Ravivarapu,Joseph Sewell-Araya,Sander Florman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2023.0364

2024-01-09

Journal of Endourology

Abstract:Purpose: To compare the intra-operative and post-operative outcomes of Single-Port Robotic Donor Nephrectomies (SP RDNs) and Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomies (LDNs) Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our institutional database for patients who received LDN or SP RDN between September 2020 and December 2022. Donor baseline characteristics, intra-operative outcomes, post-operative outcomes, and recipient renal function were extracted and compared between LDN and SP RDN. SP RDN learning curve analysis based on operative time and graft extraction time was performed using Cumulative Sum Analysis. Results: 144 patients underwent LDN and 32 patients underwent SP RDN. LDN and SP RDN had similar operative times (LDN: 190.3 ± 28.0 min., SP RDN: 194.5 ± 35.1 min., p=0.3253). SP RDN patients had significantly greater extraction times (LDN: 83.2 ± 40.3 sec., SP RDN: 204.1 ± 52.2 sec, p<0.0001) and warm ischemia times (LDN: 145.1 ± 61.7 sec., SP RDN: 275.4 ± 65.6 sec., p<0.0001). There were no differences in patient subjective pain scores, inpatient opioid usage, or Clavien-Dindo II+ complications. Short- and medium-term post-operative donor and recipient renal function were also similar between the groups. SP RDN graft extraction time and total operative time learning curves were achieved at case 27 and 13, respectively. Conclusion: SP RDN is a safe and feasible alternative to LDN that minimizes post-operative abdominal incisional scars and has a short learning curve. Future randomized prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm the findings of this study and to identify other potential benefits and drawbacks of SP RDNs.

urology & nephrology
Postoperative Outcomes and Analgesic Requirements of Single-Port vs Multi-Port Robotic Assisted Radical Cystectomy

Andrew M. Fang,Omar Hayek,John Michael Kaylor,Charles C. Peyton,James E. Ferguson,Jeffrey W. Nix,Soroush Rais-Bahrami,Andrew Fang,John Kaylor,Charles Peyton,Jeffrey Nix

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2023.0553

2024-03-12

Journal of Endourology

Abstract:<b><i>Objective:</i></b> To compare outcomes in patients undergoing robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with urinary diversion for bladder cancer with either the single-port (SP) or multiport (MP) robotic platform. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> All patients who underwent SP and MP RARC at our institution between January 2018 and January 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. Postoperative analgesia was administered by a departmentwide narcotic stewardship protocol, and inpatient and outpatient narcotic use was tracked. The available preoperative clinical, operative, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed using <i>t</i>-test, chi-square, and Fischer exact statistical measures. Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank testing was used to determine the freedom from high-grade (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) postoperative complications stratified by SP or MP robotic use. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Overall, 96 patients underwent RARC with urinary diversion at our institution, with 49 MP and 47 SP procedures performed. Preoperative clinical parameters including age, body mass index, prior abdominal surgery, and use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were similar between the two groups. Patients undergoing SP RARC had a shorter operative time (386.0 ± 90.9 minutes <i>vs</i> 453.6 ± 94.8 minutes, <i>p</i> < 0.01) and faster return of bowel function (3.4 ± 1.4 days <i>vs</i> 4.5 ± 2.2 days, <i>p</i> < 0.01). However, both cohorts had similar length of hospitalization, postoperative narcotic use, pathologic staging, and rate of positive surgical margin. Within 3 months postoperatively, both cohorts had a similar high-grade complication, hospital readmission, and cancer recurrence rate. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The SP robot allows a safe alternative surgical approach for RARC and offers similar postoperative outcomes compared to the MP robot.

urology & nephrology
A Retrospective, Multi-Center, Comparative Study

Gonçalo Mendes,Mariana Madanelo,Fernando Vila,Rui Versos,Bernardo Lobão Teixeira,Maria Alexandra Rocha,Sofia Mesquita,Miguel Marques-Monteiro,Paulo Príncipe,Ricardo Ramires,Joaquim Lindoro,Avelino Fraga,Miguel Silva-Ramos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13030701

IF: 3.9

2024-01-26

Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract:Purpose: The aim of our study is to compare the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic transperitoneal partial nephrectomy (LTPN) and laparoscopic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy (LRPN) for posterior cT1 renal tumors. Methods: We retrospectively collected data on all patients who consecutively underwent LTPN and LRPN for posterior cT1 renal tumors in three different centers from January 2015 to January 2023. Patients with a single, unilateral, cT1 renal mass, located in the posterior renal surface were included. Patients' data regarding perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes were collected from medical records and statistically analyzed and compared. Results: A total of 128 patients was obtained, with 53 patients in the LPTN group and 75 patients in the LRPN group. Baseline characteristics were similar. Warm ischemia time (WIT) (18.8 vs. 22.6 min, p = 0.002) and immediate postoperative eGFR drop (−6.1 vs. −13.0 mL/min/1.73 m2, p = 0.047) were significantly lower in the LPTN group. Estimated blood loss (EBL) (100 vs. 150 mL, p = 0.043) was significantly lower in the LRPN group. All other perioperative and functional outcomes and complications were similar between the groups. The positive surgical margin (PSM) rate was lower in the LRPN group, although without statistical significance (7.2% vs. 13.5%, p = 0.258). Surgical success defined by Trifecta (WIT ≤ 25 min, no PSM, and no major postoperative complication) was similar between both approaches. Conclusions: LTPN has significantly shorter WIT and a significantly smaller drop in immediate eGFR when compared to LRPN for posterior renal tumors. On the other hand, LRPN has significantly less EBL than LTPN. LRPN demonstrated fewer PSMs than LTPN, albeit without statistical significance. In terms of overall surgical success, as defined by Trifecta, both approaches achieved similar results.

medicine, general & internal
Comparison of Perioperative, Functional, and Oncologic Outcomes of Open vs. Robot-Assisted Off-Clamp Partial Nephrectomy: A Propensity Scored Match Analysis

Mastroianni,Chiacchio,Perpepaj,Tuderti,Brassetti,Anceschi,Ferriero,Misuraca,D'Annunzio,Bove,Guaglianone,Flammia,Proietti,Pula,Milanese,Leonardo,Galosi,Simone

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s24092822

IF: 3.9

2024-04-29

Sensors

Abstract:Off-clamp partial nephrectomy represents one of the latest developments in nephron-sparing surgery, with the goal of preserving renal function and reducing ischemia time. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the functional, oncologic, and perioperative outcomes between off-clamp robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (off-C RAPN) and off-clamp open partial nephrectomy (off-C OPN) through a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis. A 1:1 PSM analysis was used to balance variables potentially affecting postoperative outcomes. To report surgical quality, 1 year trifecta was used. Univariable Cox regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of trifecta achievement. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to compare cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS) probabilities between groups. Overall, 542 patients were included. After PSM analysis, two homogeneous cohorts of 147 patients were obtained. The off-C RAPN cohort experienced shorter length of stay (LoS) (3.4 days vs. 5.4 days; p < 0.001), increased likelihoods of achieving 1 year trifecta (89.8% vs. 80.3%; p = 0.03), lower postoperative Clavien–Dindo ≤ 2 complications (1.3% vs. 18.3%, p < 0.001), and lower postoperative transfusion rates (3.4% vs. 12.2%, p = 0.008). At univariable analysis, the surgical approach (off-C RAPN vs. off-C OPN, OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.09–4.46, p = 0.02) was the only predictor of 1 year trifecta achievement. At Kaplan–Meier analysis, no differences were observed between the two groups in terms of OS (log-rank p = 0.451), CSS (log-rank p = 0.476), DFS (log-rank p = 0.678), and MFS (log-rank p = 0.226). Comparing RAPN and OPN in a purely off-clamp scenario, the minimally invasive approach proved to be a feasible and safe surgical approach, with a significantly lower LoS and minor rate of postoperative complications and transfusions as a result of improved surgical quality expressed by higher 1 year trifecta achievement.

engineering, electrical & electronic,chemistry, analytical,instruments & instrumentation
Surgical Approach for Partial Nephrectomy in the Management of Small Renal Masses: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Ailish Naughton,Éanna J Ryan,Robert Keenan,Arun Z Thomas,Lisa G Smyth,Rustom P Manecksha,Robert J Flynn,Rowan G Casey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2023.0107

Abstract:Background: A variety of surgical and nonsurgical management options for small renal masses (SRMs) now exist. Surgery in the form of partial nephrectomy (PN) has three different approaches. It is unclear which PN approach, if any, offers superior clinical outcomes. Aim: The aim of this study is to compare outcomes in patients with SRMs <4 cm undergoing PN through the open partial nephrectomy (OPN), laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN), or robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) approach and to establish the advantages and disadvantages of the various approaches. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies comparing at least two of the above techniques. Eighteen studies and 17,013 patients were included in our study. A network meta-analysis with a frequentist framework was performed. OPN was used as the baseline comparator. The prespecified primary outcome was R0 resection rates. Secondary outcomes included operating time, ischemia time, blood loss, transfusion rates, urine leak rates, significant morbidity, length of stay, and recurrence. Results: There was no significant difference between the techniques in terms of R0 rates, tumor recurrence, urine leak rates, renal function, and >3a Clavien-Dindo complications. LPN had a longer ischemic time and operating time. OPN had a longer length of stay and higher average intraoperative blood loss. RPN had lower blood transfusion rates. Discussion: All approaches are acceptable from an oncological perspective. The minimally invasive approaches (i.e., RPN and LPN) offer advantages in terms of morbidity; however, LPN may increase ischemic time and operative duration. Variations between perioperative outcomes may influence the choice of approach on a case-by-case and institutional basis.
The Impact of Surgical Strategy in Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy: Is It Beneficial to Treat Anterior Tumours with Transperitoneal Access and Posterior Tumours with Retroperitoneal Access?

Paolo Dell’Oglio,Geert De Naeyer,Lyu Xiangjun,Zachary Hamilton,Umberto Capitanio,Francesco Ripa,Francesco Cianflone,Fabio Muttin,Peter Schatteman,Frederiek D’Hondt,Xin Ma,Ahmet Bindayi,Xu Zhang,Ithaar Derweesh,Alexandre Mottrie,Francesco Montorsi,Alessandro Larcher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.12.010

IF: 8.208

2021-02-01

European Urology Oncology

Abstract:Available comparison of transperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (tRAPN) and retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (rRAPN) does not consider tumour's location. The aim of this study was to compare perioperative morbidity, and functional and pathological outcomes after tRAPN and rRAPN, with the specific hypothesis that tRAPN for anterior tumours and rRAPN for posterior tumours might be a beneficial strategy. A large global collaborative dataset of 1169 cT1-2N0M0 patients was used. Propensity score matching, and logistic and linear regression analyses tested the effect of tRAPN versus rRAPN on perioperative outcomes. No differences were observed between rRAPN and tRAPN with respect to complications, operative time, length of stay, ischaemia time, median 1-yr estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and positive surgical margins (all p>0.05). Median estimated blood loss and postoperative eGFR were 50 versus100ml (p<0.0001) and 82 versus 78ml/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup> (p=0.04) after rRAPN and tRAPN, respectively. At interaction tests, no advantage was observed after tRAPN for anterior tumours and rRAPN for posterior tumours with respect to complications, warm ischaemia time, postoperative eGFR, and positive surgical margins (all p>0.05). The techniques of rRAPN and tRAPN offer equivalent perioperative morbidity, and functional and pathological outcomes, regardless of tumour's location. PATIENT SUMMARY: Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy can be performed with a transperitoneal or a retroperitoneal approach regardless of the specific position of the tumour, with equivalent outcomes for the patient.

oncology,urology & nephrology

CAMS 2005 PC Co-chairs' Message

Single-Port Versus Multi-Port Robotic Retroperitoneal Partial Nephrectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison

Single-port vs multi-port robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: A single center propensity score-matched analysis

Single-Port Versus Multiport Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Meta-Analysis

Single Port Modified Partial Nephrectomy: Novel Simultaneous Access to Peritoneal and Retroperitoneal Partial Nephrectomy, Initial Clinical Experience

Retroperitoneal robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors: a matched comparison of perioperative outcomes of a single surgeon

Single-Port Extraperitoneal vs. Multiport Transperitoneal Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Perioperative and functional outcomes of single-port versus multi-port robotic-assisted radical cystectomy: evidence-based on controlled studies

Caffeine suppresses exercise-enhanced long-term and location memory in middle-aged rats: Involvement of hippocampal Akt and CREB signaling.

Comparison of peri- and intraoperative outcomes of open vs robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a propensity-matched analysis

Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection: A Comparison Among Extraperitoneal Single-port and Transperitoneal Multiport Radical Prostatectomy-A Single-center Experience

Perioperative and Long-Term Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review

Outpatient Robotic Urological Surgery: An Evidence-based Analysis

Single port robot‐assisted pyeloplasty: An early comparative outcomes analysis

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

Comparison of Single Port Robotic Donor Nephrectomy and Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

Postoperative Outcomes and Analgesic Requirements of Single-Port vs Multi-Port Robotic Assisted Radical Cystectomy

A Retrospective, Multi-Center, Comparative Study

Comparison of Perioperative, Functional, and Oncologic Outcomes of Open vs. Robot-Assisted Off-Clamp Partial Nephrectomy: A Propensity Scored Match Analysis

Surgical Approach for Partial Nephrectomy in the Management of Small Renal Masses: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

The Impact of Surgical Strategy in Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy: Is It Beneficial to Treat Anterior Tumours with Transperitoneal Access and Posterior Tumours with Retroperitoneal Access?