Advertisement

Improved perioperative outcomes by early unclamping prior to renorrhaphy compared with conventional clamping during robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a propensity score matching analysis

  • Daisuke MotoyamaEmail author
  • Yuto Matsushita
  • Hiromitsu Watanabe
  • Keita Tamura
  • Toshiki Ito
  • Takayuki Sugiyama
  • Atsushi Otsuka
  • Hideaki Miyake
Original Article
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the early unclamping (EU) technique on perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). This study included 96 patients with small renal masses who underwent RAPN performed by a single surgeon using the da Vinci Xi between April 2016 and September 2018. EU and conventional clamping (CC) procedures were defined as those removing the renal artery clamp before and after renorrhaphy, respectively. In this series, contrast-enhanced computed tomography was performed 3–5 days after RAPN to examine the incidence of renal artery pseudoaneurysm (RAP). After adjusting patient variables by 1:1 propensity score matching, 45 patients were included in both the EU and CC groups, and no significant differences in major clinical characteristics were noted between these two groups. Although there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients achieving trifecta or the margin, ischemia and complications score between the two groups, the EU group was significantly superior to the CC group regarding the operative time, console time, warm ischemia time, impairment of renal function 1 day after RAPN, incidence of RAP and postoperative length of hospital stay. Furthermore, RAP occurred in seven patients in the entire cohort (13.3%) receiving CC, including two who required trans-arterial embolization due to severe macrohematuria, whereas RAP was completely prevented by the use of EU. The introduction of the EU technique to RAPN may improve perioperative outcomes, particularly by markedly reducing the risk of RAP even with renorrhaphy.

Keywords

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy Renal artery pseudoaneurysm Early unclamping 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors Motoyama, Matsushita, Watanabe, Tamura, Ito, Sugiyama, Otsuka and Miyake declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in the studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of our institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Formal consent from the patients was not required for this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Gill IS, Aron M, Gervais DA, Jewett MA (2010) Clinical practice. Small renal mass. N Engl J Med 362:624–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gettman M, Rivera M (2016) Innovations in robotic surgery. Curr Opin Urol 26:271–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim DH, Kim H, Kwak S, Baek K, Na G, Kim JH, Kim SH (2016) The settings, pros and cons of the new surgical robot da Vinci Xi system for transoral robotic surgery (TORS): a comparison with the popular da Vinci Si system. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 26:391–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Xia L, Wang X, Xu T, Guzzo TJ (2017) Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies reporting perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy versus open partial nephrectomy. J Endourol 31:893–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang X, Yan J, Ren Y, Shen C, Ying X, Pan S (2014) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for localized renal tumors: a meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med 15:4770–4779Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ficarra V, Rossanese M, Gnech M, Novara G, Mottrie A (2014) Outcomes and limitations of laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy. Curr Opin Urol 24:441–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chatziioannou A, Mourikis D, Awad M, Konstantinedes P, Panourgias E, Vlachos L (2000) Embolization of a segmental renal artery pseudoaneurysm after partial nephrectomy in a solitary kidney. Urol Int 64:223–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hidas G, Croitoru S, Wolfson V, Moskovitz B, Nativ O (2005) Renal artery pseudoaneurysm after partial nephrectomy complicated by rupture into the collecting system, managed by selective angiographic embolization. Isr Med Assoc J 7:410–411Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Singh D, Gill IS (2005) Renal artery pseudoaneurysm following laparoscopic partial Nephrectomy. J Urol 174:2256–2259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hyams ES, Pierorazio P, Proteek O, Sukumar S, Wagner AA, Mechaber JL, Rogers C, Kavoussi L, Allaf M (2011) Iatrogenic vascular lesions after minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: a multi-institutional study of clinical and renal functional outcomes. Urology 78:820–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baumert H, Ballaro A, Shah N, Mansouri D, Zafar N, Molinié V, Neal D (2007) Reducing warm ischaemia time during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a prospective comparison of two renal closure techniques. Eur Urol 52:1164–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stonier T, Rai BP, Trimboli M, Abroaf A, Patel A, Gowrie-Mohan S, Prasad V, Vasdev N, Adshead J (2017) Early vs. standard unclamping technique in minimal access partial nephrectomy: a meta-analysis of observational cohort studies and the Lister cohort. J Robot Surg 11:389–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kondo T, Takagi T, Morita S, Omae K, Hashimoto Y, Kobayashi H, Iizuka J, Yoshida K, Fukuda N, Tanabe K (2015) Early unclamping might reduce the risk of renal artery pseudoaneurysm after robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Int J Urol 22:1096–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levey AS, Stevens LA, Schmid CH, Zhang YL, Castro AF 3rd, Feldman HI, Kusek JW, Eggers P, Van Lente F, Greene T, Coresh J (2009) A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med 150:604–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kutikov A, Uzzo RG (2009) The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J Urol 182:844–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Takagi T, Kondo T, Tajima T, Campbell SC, Tanabe K (2014) Enhanced computed tomography after partial nephrectomy in early postoperative period to detect asymptomatic renal artery pseudoaneurysm. Int J Urol 2:880–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Buffi N, Lista G, Larcher A, Lughezzani G, Ficarra V, Cestari A, Lazzeri M, Guazzoni G (2012) Margin, ischemia, and complications (MIC) score in partial nephrectomy: a new system for evaluating achievement of optimal outcomes in nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol 62:617–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zargar H, Allaf ME, Bhayani S, Stifelman M, Rogers C, Ball MW, Larson J, Marshall S, Kumar R, Kaouk JH (2015) Trifecta and optimal perioperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in surgical treatment of small renal masses: a multi-institutional study. BJU Int 116:407–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Veeratterapillay R, Addla SK, Jelley C, Bailie J, Rix D, Bromage S, Oakley N, Weston R, Soomro NA (2017) Early surgical outcomes and oncological results of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a multicentre study. BJU Int 120:550–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peyronnet B, Tondut L, Bernhard JC, Vaessen C, Doumerc N, Sebe P, Pradere B, Guillonneau B, Khene ZE, Nouhaud FX, Brichart N, Seisen T, Alimi Q, Beauval JB, Mathieu R, Rammal A, de la Taille A, Baumert H, Droupy S, Bruyere F, Rouprêt M, Mejean A, Bensalah K (2018) Impact of hospital volume and surgeon volume on robot-assisted partial nephrectomy outcomes: a multicentre study. BJU Int 121:916–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daisuke Motoyama
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yuto Matsushita
    • 1
  • Hiromitsu Watanabe
    • 1
  • Keita Tamura
    • 1
  • Toshiki Ito
    • 1
  • Takayuki Sugiyama
    • 1
  • Atsushi Otsuka
    • 1
  • Hideaki Miyake
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyHamamatsu University School of MedicineHamamatsuJapan

Personalised recommendations