Robotic or Laparoscopic Renal Surgery: Pros and Cons

  • Pieter Uvin
  • Cedric Leys
  • Giorgio Gandaglia
  • Nicola Fossati
  • Ruben De Groote
  • Alexandre MottrieEmail author


The widespread use of routine abdominal imaging has led to an increased proportion of patients diagnosed with asymptomatic small renal masses. Minimally invasive renal surgery has become one of the main treatment choice for the management of small renal masses. In this chapter the pros and cons of minimally invasive renal surgery will be analyzed for both benign and malignant diseases.


Minimally invasive surgical procedures Robotic surgical procedures Laparoscopy Carcinoma Renal cell 


  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(1):5–29. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohen HT, McGovern FJ. Renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(23):2477–90. Available from: Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fuller CD, Thomas CR, Schwartz S, Golden N, Ting J, Wong A, et al. Method comparison of ultrasound and kilovoltage x-ray fiducial marker imaging for prostate radiotherapy targeting. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51(19):4981–93. Available from Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhang X, Yan J, Ren Y, Shen C, Ying X, Pan S. Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for localized renal tumors: a meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014;7(12):4770–9. Available from: Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kane CJ, Mallin K, Ritchey J, Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Renal cell cancer stage migration. Cancer. 2008;113(1):78–83. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Robson CJ, Churchill BM, Anderson W. The results of radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 1969;101(3):297–301. Available from: Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van Poppel H, Da Pozzo L, Albrecht W, Matveev V, Bono A, Borkowski A, et al. Chronic kidney disease after nephrectomy in patients with renal cortical tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Eur Urol. 2011;59(4):543–52. Available from: Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roos FC, Brenner W, Thomas C, Jäger W, Thüroff JW, Hampel C, et al. Functional analysis of elective nephron-sparing surgery vs radical nephrectomy for renal tumors larger than 4 cm. Urology. 2012;79(3):607–14. Available from: Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klingler HC, Remzi M, Janetschek G, Marberger M. Benefits of laparoscopic renal surgery are more pronounced in patients with a high body mass index. Eur Urol. 2003;43(5):522–7. Available from: Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schiff JD, Palese M, Vaughan ED, Sosa RE, Coll D, Del Pizzo JJ. Laparoscopic vs open partial nephrectomy in consecutive patients: the cornell experience. BJU Int. 2005;96(6):811–4. Available from: Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR, Soper NJ, Dierks SM, Meretyk S, Darcy MD, et al. Laparoscopic nephrectomy: initial case report. J Urol. 1991;146(2):278–82. Available from: Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gill IS, Matin SF, Desai MM, Kaouk JH, Steinberg A, Mascha E, et al. Comparative analysis of laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy for renal tumors in 200 patients. J Urol. 2003;170(1):64–8. Available from: Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nisen H, Järvinen P, Kilpeläinen T, Järvinen R, Visapää H, Taari K. Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy in patients with T1 renal tumor: comparative perioperative, functional and oncological outcome. Scand J Urol. 2015;28:1–7. Available from: Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jeong W, Kumar R, Menon M. Past, present and future of urological robotic surgery. Investig Clin Urol. 2016;57(2):75. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hollenbeck BK, Taub DA, Miller DC, Dunn RL, Wei JT. National utilization trends of partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a case of underutilization? Urology. 2006;67(2):254–9. Available from: Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gettman MT, Blute ML, Chow GK, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: technique and initial clinical experience with DaVinci robotic system. Urology. 2004;64(5):914–8. Available from: Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nepple KG, Sandhu GS, Rogers CG, Allaf ME, Kaouk JH, Figenshau RS, et al. Description of a multicenter safety checklist for intraoperative hemorrhage control while clamped during robotic partial nephrectomy. Patient Saf Surg. 2012;6(1):8. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ganpule AP, Goti AG, Mishra SK, Sabnis RB, Desai MM, Desai MR. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a single centre Indian experience. J Minim Access Surg. 2015;11(1):78–82. Available from: Scholar
  19. 19.
    Janetschek G. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: how far have we gone? Curr Opin Urol. 2007;17(5):316–21. Available from: Scholar
  20. 20.
    Novick AC. Renal-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma. Urol Clin North Am. 1993;20(2):277–82. Available from: Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oakley NE, Hegarty NJ, McNeill A, Gill IS. Minimally invasive nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell cancer. BJU Int. 2006;98(2):278–84. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Simmons MN, Chung BI, Gill IS. Perioperative efficacy of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for tumors larger than 4cm. Eur Urol. 2009;55(1):199–208. Available from: Scholar
  23. 23.
    Simmons MN, Weight CJ, Gill IS. Laparoscopic radical versus partial nephrectomy for tumors >4 cm: intermediate-term oncologic and functional outcomes. Urology. 2009;73(5):1077–82. Available from: Scholar
  24. 24.
    George AK, Rothwax JT, Herati AS, Srinivasan AK, Rais-Bahrami S, Shah P, et al. Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy stratified by body mass index. J Endourol. 2015;29(9):1011–7. Scholar
  25. 25.
    Autorino R, Khalifeh A, Laydner H, Samarasekera D, Rizkala E, Eyraud R, et al. Repeat robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN): feasibility and early outcomes. BJU Int. 2013;111(5):767–72. Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lerner SE, Hawkins CA, Blute ML, Grabner A, Wollan PC, Eickholt JT, et al. Disease outcome in patients with low stage renal cell carcinoma treated with nephron sparing or radical surgery. 1996. J Urol. 2002;167(2 Pt 2):884–9. discussion 889–90. Available from: Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee CT, Katz J, Shi W, Thaler HT, Reuter VE, Russo P. Surgical management of renal tumors 4 cm. or less in a contemporary cohort. J Urol. 2000;163(3):730–6. Available from: Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fergany AF, Hafez KS, Novick AC. Long-term results of nephron sparing surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: 10-year followup. J Urol. 2000;163(2):442–5. Available from: Scholar
  29. 29.
    Permpongkosol S, Bagga HS, Romero FR, Sroka M, Jarrett TW, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy for the treatment of pathological T1N0M0 renal cell carcinoma: a 5-year survival rate. J Urol. 2006;176(5):1984–8. discussion 1988–9. Available from: Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Lane BR, Blute ML, Babineau D, Colombo JR, et al. Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors. J Urol. 2007;178(1):41–6. Available from: Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lane BR, Gill IS. 5-year outcomes of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2007;177(1):70–4. Available from: Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lane BR, Campbell SC, Gill IS. 10-year oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2013;190(1):44–9. Available from: Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gill IS, Colombo JR, Moinzadeh A, Finelli A, Ukimura O, Tucker K, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in solitary kidney. J Urol. 2006;175(2):454–8. Available from: Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gong EM, Orvieto MA, Zorn KC, Lucioni A, Steinberg GD, Shalhav AL. Comparison of laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy in clinical T 1a renal tumors. J Endourol. 2008;22(5):953–8. Scholar
  35. 35.
    Marszalek M, Meixl H, Polajnar M, Rauchenwald M, Jeschke K, Madersbacher S. Laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison of 200 patients. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5):1171–8. Available from: Scholar
  36. 36.
    Favaretto RL, Sanchez-Salas R, Benoist N, Ercolani M, Forgues A, Galiano M, et al. Oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: mid-term results. J Endourol. 2013;27(1):52–7. Scholar
  37. 37.
    George AK, Herati AS, Rais-Bahrami S, Waingankar N, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for hilar tumors: oncologic and renal functional outcomes. Urology. 2014;83(1):111–5. Available from: Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zheng J, Zhang X, Geng J, Guo C, Zhang X, Che J, et al. Long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy. Chin Med J (Engl). 2013;126(15):2938–42. Available from: Scholar
  39. 39.
    Liu Z, Wang P, Xia D, Lou Y-F, Pan H-F, Wang S. Comparison between laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy: surgical, oncologic, and functional outcomes. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2013;29(11):624–8. Available from: Scholar
  40. 40.
    Secin FP, Castillo OA, Rozanec JJ, Featherston M, Holst P, Milfont JCA, et al. American confederation of urology (CAU) experience in minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. World J Urol. 2016.
  41. 41.
    Ficarra V, Rossanese M, Gnech M, Novara G, Mottrie A. Outcomes and limitations of laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy. Curr Opin Urol. 2014;24(5):441–7. Available from: Scholar
  42. 42.
    Deane LA, Lee HJ, Box GN, Melamud O, Yee DS, Abraham JBA, et al. Robotic versus standard laparoscopic partial/wedge nephrectomy: a comparison of intraoperative and perioperative results from a single institution. J Endourol. 2008;22(5):947–52. Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rogers CG, Menon M, Weise ES, Gettman MT, Frank I, Shephard DL, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy: a multi-institutional analysis. J Robot Surg. 2008;2(3):141–3. Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mottrie A, Koliakos N, De Naeyer G. Tumor enucleoresection in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. J Robot Surg. 2009;3(2):65–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Khalifeh A, Autorino R, Eyraud R, Samarasekera D, Laydner H, Panumatrassamee K, et al. Three-year oncologic and renal functional outcomes after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(5):744–50. Available from: Scholar
  46. 46.
    Borghesi M, Schiavina R, Gan M, Novara G, Mottrie A, Ficarra V. Expanding utilization of robotic partial nephrectomy for clinical T1b and complex T1a renal masses. World J Urol. 2013;31(3):499–504. Scholar
  47. 47.
    Curtiss KM, Ball MW, Gorin MA, Harris KT, Pierorazio PM, Allaf ME. Perioperative outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy for intrarenal tumors. J Endourol. 2015;29(3):293–6. Available from: Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kaul S, Laungani R, Sarle R, Stricker H, Peabody J, Littleton R, et al. da Vinci-assisted robotic partial nephrectomy: technique and results at a mean of 15 months of follow-up. Eur Urol. 2007;51(1):186–91. discussion 191–2. Available from: Scholar
  49. 49.
    Aron M, Koenig P, Kaouk JH, Nguyen MM, Desai MM, Gill IS. Robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison from a high-volume centre. BJU Int. 2008;102(1):86–92. Scholar
  50. 50.
    Benway BM, Bhayani SB, Rogers CG, Porter JR, Buffi NM, Figenshau RS, et al. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: an international experience. Eur Urol. 2010;57(5):815–20. Available from: Scholar
  51. 51.
    Takagi T, Kondo T, Tachibana H, Iizuka J, Omae K, Kobayashi H, et al. A propensity score-matched comparison of surgical precision obtained by using volumetric analysis between robot-assisted laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy for T1 renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective non-randomized observational study of initial outcomes. Int Urol Nephrol. 2016;48(10):1585–91. Available from: Scholar
  52. 52.
    Patton MW, Salevitz DA, Tyson MD, Andrews PE, Ferrigni EN, Nateras RN, et al. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for complex renal masses. J Robot Surg. 2016;10(1):27–31. Available from: Scholar
  53. 53.
    Carneiro A, Sivaraman A, Sanchez-Salas R, Di Trapani E, Barret E, Rozet F, et al. Evolution from laparoscopic to robotic nephron sparing surgery: a high-volume laparoscopic center experience on achieving “trifecta” outcomes. World J Urol. 2015;33(12):2039–44. Available from: Scholar
  54. 54.
    Volpe A, Garrou D, Amparore D, De Naeyer G, Porpiglia F, Ficarra V, et al. Perioperative and renal functional outcomes of elective robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for renal tumours with high surgical complexity. BJU Int. 2014;114(6):903–9. Scholar
  55. 55.
    Barbier E, Theveniaud P-E, Claudon M, Eschwege P, Hubert J. Eight years of experience in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: oncological and functional outcomes. Prog Urol. 2014;24(3):185–90. Available from: Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ricciardulli S, Ding Q, Zhang X, Li H, Tang Y, Yang G, et al. Evaluation of laparoscopic vs robotic partial nephrectomy using the margin, ischemia and complications score system: a retrospective single center analysis. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2015;87(1):49–55. Available from: Scholar
  57. 57.
    Breda A, Stepanian SV, Liao J, Lam JS, Guazzoni G, Stifelman M, et al. Positive margins in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in 855 cases: a multi-institutional survey from the United States and Europe. J Urol. 2007;178(1):47–50. discussion 50. Available from: Scholar
  58. 58.
    Moinzadeh A, Gill IS, Finelli A, Kaouk J, Desai M. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: 3-year followup. J Urol. 2006;175(2):459–62. Available from: Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sutherland SE, Resnick MI, Maclennan GT, Goldman HB. Does the size of the surgical margin in partial nephrectomy for renal cell cancer really matter? J Urol. 2002;167(1):61–4. Available from: Scholar
  60. 60.
    Permpongkosol S, Colombo JR, Gill IS, Kavoussi LR. Positive surgical parenchymal margin after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: oncological outcomes. J Urol. 2006;176(6 Pt 1):2401–4. Available from: Scholar
  61. 61.
    Yossepowitch O, Thompson RH, Leibovich BC, Eggener SE, Pettus JA, Kwon ED, et al. Positive surgical margins at partial nephrectomy: predictors and oncological outcomes. J Urol. 2008;179(6):2158–63. Available from: Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ukimura O, Haber G-P, Remer EM, Gill IS.Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for incidental stage pT2 or worse tumors. Urology. 2006;68(5):976–82. Available from: Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rais-Bahrami S, Romero FR, Lima GC, Kohanim S, Permpongkosol S, Trock BJ, et al. Elective laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in patients with tumors >4 cm. Urology. 2008;72(3):580–3. Available from: Scholar
  64. 64.
    Gill IS, Colombo JR, Frank I, Moinzadeh A, Kaouk J, Desai M. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for hilar tumors. J Urol. 2005;174(3):850–3. discussion 853–4. Available from: Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lattouf J-B, Beri A, D’Ambros OFJ, Grüll M, Leeb K, Janetschek G. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for hilar tumors: technique and results. Eur Urol. 2008;54(2):409–16. Available from: Scholar
  66. 66.
    Richstone L, Montag S, Ost M, Reggio E, Permpongkosol S, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for hilar tumors: evaluation of short-term oncologic outcome. Urology. 2008;71(1):36–40. Available from: Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lam JS, Bergman J, Breda A, Schulam PG. Importance of surgical margins in the management of renal cell carcinoma. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2008;5(6):308–17. Scholar
  68. 68.
    Rogers CG, Metwalli A, Blatt AM, Bratslavsky G, Menon M, Linehan WM, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy for renal hilar tumors: a multi-institutional analysis. J Urol. 2008;180(6):2353–6. Available from: Scholar
  69. 69.
    Rogers CG, Singh A, Blatt AM, Linehan WM, Pinto PA. Robotic partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors: surgical technique. Eur Urol. 2008;53(3):514–23. Available from: Scholar
  70. 70.
    Shapiro E, Benway BM, Wang AJ, Bhayani SB. The role of nephron-sparing robotic surgery in the management of renal malignancy. Curr Opin Urol. 2009;19(1):76–80. Available from: Scholar
  71. 71.
    Arriaga J, Sotelo R. Difference of opinion – which is the best treatment on a 2 cm complete endophitic tumor on the posterior side of the left kidney? Opinion: robotic partial nephrectomy. Int Braz J Urol. 2016;42(1):8–10. Available from: Scholar
  72. 72.
    Choyke PL, Pavlovich CP, Daryanani KD, Hewitt SM, Linehan WM, Walther MM. Intraoperative ultrasound during renal parenchymal sparing surgery for hereditary renal cancers: a 10-year experience. J Urol. 2001;165(2):397–400. Available from: Scholar
  73. 73.
    Doerfler A, Oitchayomi A, Tillou X. A simple method for ensuring resection margins during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: the intracorporeal ultrasonography. Urology. 2014;84(5):1240–2. Available from: Scholar
  74. 74.
    Curet MJ. Port site metastases. Am J Surg. 2004;187(6):705–12. Available from: Scholar
  75. 75.
    Rassweiler J, Tsivian A, Kumar AVR, Lymberakis C, Schulze M, Seeman O, et al. Oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for urological malignancy: experience with more than 1,000 operations. J Urol. 2003;169(6):2072–5. Available from: Scholar
  76. 76.
    Lee BR, Tan BJ, Smith AD. Laparoscopic port site metastases: incidence, risk factors, and potential preventive measures. Urology. 2005;65(4):639–44. Available from: Scholar
  77. 77.
    Rané A, Eng MK, Keeley FX. Port site metastases. Curr Opin Urol. 2008;18(2):185–9. Available from: Scholar
  78. 78.
    Castillo OA, Vitagliano G, Díaz M, Sánchez-Salas R. Port-site metastasis after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: case report and literature review. J Endourol. 2007;21(4):404–7. Scholar
  79. 79.
    Tian X, Zhao J, Wang Y, Xing N. Port-site metastasis after retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for renal pelvic cancer. Chin Med J (Engl). 2014;127(20):3678–9. Available from: Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ni S, Tao W, Chen Q, Liu L, Jiang H, Hu H, et al. Laparoscopic versus open nephroureterectomy for the treatment of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2012;61(6):1142–53. Available from: Scholar
  81. 81.
    Uson AC. Tumor recurrence in the renal fossa and/or the abdominal wall after radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. Prog Clin Biol Res. 1982;100:549–60. Available from: Scholar
  82. 82.
    Ito H, Makiyama K, Kawahara T, Osaka K, Izumi K, Yokomizo Y, et al. Impact of accidental tumor incision during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy on the oncologic and clinical outcomes. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2015. Available from:;14(4):e291–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Huang WC, Levey AS, Serio AM, Snyder M, Vickers AJ, Raj GV, et al. Chronic kidney disease after nephrectomy in patients with renal cortical tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(9):735–40. Available from: Scholar
  84. 84.
    Scosyrev E, Messing EM, Sylvester R, Campbell S, Van Poppel H. Renal function after nephron-sparing surgery versus radical nephrectomy: results from EORTC randomized trial 30904. Eur Urol. 2014;65(2):372–7. Available from: Scholar
  85. 85.
    Zhang Z, Haimovich B, Kwon YS, Lu T, Fyfe-Kirschner B, Olweny EO. Unilateral partial nephrectomy with warm ischemia results in acute hypoxia inducible factor 1-alpha (HIF-1α) and Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) overexpression in a porcine model. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0154708. Scholar
  86. 86.
    Simmons MN, Schreiber MJ, Gill IS. Surgical renal ischemia: a contemporary overview. J Urol. 2008;180(1):19–30. Available from: Scholar
  87. 87.
    Beri A, Lattouf J-B, Deambros O, Grüll M, Gschwendtner M, Ziegerhofer J, et al. Partial nephrectomy using renal artery perfusion for cold ischemia: functional and oncologic outcomes. J Endourol. 2008;22(6):1285–90. Scholar
  88. 88.
    Landman J, Rehman J, Sundaram CP, Bhayani S, Monga M, Pattaras JG, et al. Renal hypothermia achieved by retrograde intracavitary saline perfusion. J Endourol. 2002;16(7):445–9. Available from: Scholar
  89. 89.
    Guillonneau B, Bermúdez H, Gholami S, El Fettouh H, Gupta R, Adorno Rosa J, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumor: single center experience comparing clamping and no clamping techniques of the renal vasculature. J Urol. 2003;169(2):483–6. Available from: Scholar
  90. 90.
    Abukora F, Albqami N, Nambirajan T, Ziegerhofer J, Leeb K, Janetschek G. Long-term functional outcome of renal units after laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery under cold ischemia. J Endourol. 2006;20(10):790–3. Scholar
  91. 91.
    Thompson RH, Lane BR, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, Fergany A, Frank I, et al. Every minute counts when the renal hilum is clamped during partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol. 2010;58(3):340–5. Available from: Scholar
  92. 92.
    Volpe A, Blute ML, Ficarra V, Gill IS, Kutikov A, Porpiglia F, et al. Renal ischemia and function after partial nephrectomy: a collaborative review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2015;68(1):61–74. Available from: Scholar
  93. 93.
    Zargar H, Akca O, Ramirez D, Brandao LF, Laydner H, Krishnan J, et al. The impact of extended warm ischemia time on late renal function after robotic partial nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2015;29(4):444–8. Scholar
  94. 94.
    Fergany AF, Saad IR, Woo L, Novick AC. Open partial nephrectomy for tumor in a solitary kidney: experience with 400 cases. J Urol. 2006;175(5):1630–3. Available from: Scholar
  95. 95.
    Thompson RH, Lane BR, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, Fergany A, Frank I, et al. Renal function after partial nephrectomy: effect of warm ischemia relative to quantity and quality of preserved kidney. Urology. 2012;79(2):356–60. Available from: Scholar
  96. 96.
    Ding Y, Kong W, Zhang J, Dong B, Chen Y, Xue W, et al. Spherical cap surface model: a novel method for predicting renal function after partial nephrectomy. Int J Urol. 2016;23(8):667–72. Scholar
  97. 97.
    Bhayani SB, Rha KH, Pinto PA, Ong AM, Allaf ME, Trock BJ, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: effect of warm ischemia on serum creatinine. J Urol. 2004;172(4 Pt 1):1264–6. Available from: Scholar
  98. 98.
    Porpiglia F, Renard J, Billia M, Musso F, Volpe A, Burruni R, et al. Is renal warm ischemia over 30 minutes during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy possible? One-year results of a prospective study. Eur Urol. 2007;52(4):1170–8. Available from: Scholar
  99. 99.
    Desai MM, Gill IS, Ramani AP, Spaliviero M, Rybicki L, Kaouk JH. The impact of warm ischaemia on renal function after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2005;95(3):377–83. Available from: Scholar
  100. 100.
    Choi JD, Park JW, Lee SY, Jeong BC, Jeon SS, Lee HM, et al. Does prolonged warm ischemia after partial nephrectomy under pneumoperitoneum cause irreversible damage to the affected kidney? J Urol. 2012;187(3):802–6. Available from: Scholar
  101. 101.
    Patel AR, Eggener SE. Warm ischemia less than 30 minutes is not necessarily safe during partial nephrectomy: every minute matters. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2011;29(6):826–8. Available from: Scholar
  102. 102.
    Baumert H, Ballaro A, Shah N, Mansouri D, Zafar N, Molinié V, et al. Reducing warm ischaemia time during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a prospective comparison of two renal closure techniques. Eur Urol. 2007;52(4):1164–9. Available from: Scholar
  103. 103.
    Bollens R, Rosenblatt A, Espinoza BP, De Groote A, Quackels T, Roumeguere T, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with “on-demand” clamping reduces warm ischemia time. Eur Urol. 2007;52(3):804–10. Available from: Scholar
  104. 104.
    Nguyen MM, Gill IS. Halving ischemia time during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2008;179(2):627–32. discussion 632. Available from: Scholar
  105. 105.
    Verhoest G, Manunta A, Bensalah K, Vincendeau S, Rioux-Leclercq N, Guillé F, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with clamping of the renal parenchyma: initial experience. Eur Urol. 2007;52(5):1340–6. Available from: Scholar
  106. 106.
    Benway BM, Wang AJ, Cabello JM, Bhayani SB. Robotic partial nephrectomy with sliding-clip renorrhaphy: technique and outcomes. Eur Urol. 2009;55(3):592–9. Available from: Scholar
  107. 107.
    Verze P, Fedelini P, Chiancone F, Cucchiara V, La Rocca R, Fedelini M, et al. Perioperative and renal functional outcomes of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) for renal tumours of high surgical complexity: a single-institute comparison between clampless and clamped procedures. World J Urol. 2016.
  108. 108.
    Shah PH, George AK, Moreira DM, Alom M, Okhunov Z, Salami S, et al. To clamp or not to clamp? Long-term functional outcomes for elective off-clamp laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2016;117(2):293–9. Scholar
  109. 109.
    Caruso RP, Phillips CK, Kau E, Taneja SS, Stifelman MD. Robot assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: initial experience. J Urol. 2006;176(1):36–9. Available from: Scholar
  110. 110.
    Wang AJ, Bhayani SB. Robotic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: single-surgeon analysis of >100 consecutive procedures. Urology. 2009;73(2):306–10. Available from: Scholar
  111. 111.
    Ho H, Schwentner C, Neururer R, Steiner H, Bartsch G, Peschel R. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: surgical technique and clinical outcomes at 1 year. BJU Int. 2009;103(5):663–8. Scholar
  112. 112.
    Lee C, Kwon T, Yoo S, Jung J, Lee C, You D, et al. Comparison of renal function between robot-assisted and open partial nephrectomy as determined by Tc 99m-DTPA renal scintigraphy. J Korean Med Sci. 2016;31(5):743. Scholar
  113. 113.
    Kim DK, Komninos C, Kim L, Rha KH. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for endophytic tumors. Curr Urol Rep. 2015;16(11):76. Scholar
  114. 114.
    Bazzi WM, Sjoberg DD, Grasso AAC, Bernstein M, Parra R, Coleman JA. Predicting length of stay after robotic partial nephrectomy. Int Urol Nephrol. 2015;47(8):1321–5. Scholar
  115. 115.
    Porpiglia F, Volpe A, Billia M, Scarpa RM. Laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy: analysis of the current literature. Eur Urol. 2008;53(4):732–43. Available from: Scholar
  116. 116.
    Zimmermann R, Janetschek G. Complications of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. World J Urol. 2008;26(6):531–7. Scholar
  117. 117.
    Breda A, Finelli A, Janetschek G, Porpiglia F, Montorsi F. Complications of laparoscopic surgery for renal masses: prevention, management, and comparison with the open experience. Eur Urol. 2009;55(4):836–50. Available from: Scholar
  118. 118.
    Hung AJ, Cai J, Simmons MN, Gill IS. “Trifecta” in partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2013;189(1):36–42. Available from: Scholar
  119. 119.
    Khalifeh A, Autorino R, Hillyer SP, Laydner H, Eyraud R, Panumatrassamee K, et al. Comparative outcomes and assessment of trifecta in 500 robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy cases: a single surgeon experience. J Urol. 2013;189(4):1236–42. Available from: Scholar
  120. 120.
    Zargar H, Allaf ME, Bhayani S, Stifelman M, Rogers C, Ball MW, et al. Trifecta and optimal perioperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in surgical treatment of small renal masses: a multi-institutional study. BJU Int. 2015;116(3):407–14. Scholar
  121. 121.
    Minervini A, Siena G, Antonelli A, Bianchi G, Bocciardi AM, Cosciani Cunico S, et al. Open versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for clinical T1a renal masses: a matched-pair comparison of 280 patients with TRIFECTA outcomes (RECORd Project). World J Urol. 2014;32(1):257–63. Scholar
  122. 122.
    Komninos C, Shin TY, Tuliao P, Yoon YE, Koo KC, Chang C-H, et al. R-LESS partial nephrectomy trifecta outcome is inferior to multiport robotic partial nephrectomy: comparative analysis. Eur Urol. 2014;66(3):512–7. Available from: Scholar
  123. 123.
    Tiu A, Kim KH, Shin TY, Han WK, Han SW, Rha KH. Feasibility of robotic laparoendoscopic single-site partial nephrectomy for renal tumors >4cm. Eur Urol. 2013;63(5):941–6. Available from: Scholar
  124. 124.
    DeLong JM, Shapiro O, Moinzadeh A. Comparison of laparoscopic versus robotic assisted partial nephrectomy: one surgeon’s initial experience. Can J Urol. 2010;17(3):5207–12. Available from: Scholar
  125. 125.
    Williams SB, Kacker R, Alemozaffar M, Francisco IS, Mechaber J, Wagner AA. Robotic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a single laparoscopic trained surgeon’s experience in the development of a robotic partial nephrectomy program. World J Urol. 2013;31(4):793–8. Scholar
  126. 126.
    Hillyer SP, Autorino R, Laydner H, Yang B, Altunrende F, White M, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for bilateral synchronous kidney tumors: single-institution comparative analysis. Urology. 2011;78(4):808–12. Available from: Scholar
  127. 127.
    Wang Y, Ma X, Huang Q, Du Q, Gong H, Shang J, et al. Comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumours with a RENAL nephrometry score ≥7: peri-operative and oncological outcomes. BJU Int. 2016;117(1):126–30.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Wu Z, Li M, Song S, Ye H, Yang Q, Liu B, et al. Propensity-score matched analysis comparing robot-assisted with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2015;115(3):437–45. Scholar
  129. 129.
    Long J-A, Yakoubi R, Lee B, Guillotreau J, Autorino R, Laydner H, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for complex tumors: comparison of perioperative outcomes. Eur Urol. 2012;61(6):1257–62. Available from: Scholar
  130. 130.
    Zargar H, Autorino R, Akca O, Brandao LF, Laydner H, Kaouk J. Minimally invasive partial nephrectomy in the age of the “trifecta.”. BJU Int. 2015;116(4):505–6. Scholar
  131. 131.
    Cha EK, Lee DJ, Del Pizzo JJ. Current status of robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). BJU Int. 2011;108(6b):935–41. Scholar
  132. 132.
    Aboumarzouk OM, Stein RJ, Eyraud R, Haber G-P, Chlosta PL, Somani BK, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2012;62(6):1023–33. Available from: Scholar
  133. 133.
    Choi JE, You JH, Kim DK, Rha KH, Lee SH. Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;67(5):891–901. Scholar
  134. 134.
    Stolzenburg JU, Kyriazis I, Liatsikos E. Re: comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016;69(6):1159–60. Available from: Scholar
  135. 135.
    Choi JD, Park JW, Lee HW, Lee D-G, Jeong BC, Jeon SS, et al. A comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of robot-assisted versus pure laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. JSLS. 2013;17(2):292–9. Available from: Scholar
  136. 136.
    Kim JH, Park YH, Kim YJ, Kang SH, Byun SS, Kwak C, et al. Perioperative and long-term renal functional outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a multicenter matched-pair comparison. World J Urol. 2015;33(10):1579–84. Scholar
  137. 137.
    Zhang X, Shen Z, Zhong S, Zhu Z, Wang X, Xu T. Comparison of peri-operative outcomes of robot-assisted vs laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2013;112(8):1133–42.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Mottrie A, Borghesi M, Ficarra V. Is traditional laparoscopy the real competitor of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy? Eur Urol. 2012;62(6):1034–6. Available from: Scholar
  139. 139.
    Benway BM, Bhayani SB, Rogers CG, Dulabon LM, Patel MN, Lipkin M, et al. Robot assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors: a multi-institutional analysis of perioperative outcomes. J Urol. 2009;182(3):866–72. Available from: Scholar
  140. 140.
    Mullins JK, Feng T, Pierorazio PM, Patel HD, Hyams ES, Allaf ME. Comparative analysis of minimally invasive partial nephrectomy techniques in the treatment of localized renal tumors. Urology. 2012;80(2):316–22. Available from: Scholar
  141. 141.
    Guillonneau B, Jayet C, Tewari A, Vallancien G. Robot assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy. J Urol. 2001;166(1):200–1. Available from: Scholar
  142. 142.
    Steinberg AP, Finelli A, Desai MM, Abreu SC, Ramani AP, Spaliviero M, et al. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for large (greater than 7 cm, T2) renal tumors. J Urol. 2004;172(6 Pt 1):2172–6. Available from: Scholar
  143. 143.
    Allan JD, Tolley DA, Kaouk JH, Novick AC, Gill IS. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. Eur Urol. 2001;40(1):17–23. Available from: Scholar
  144. 144.
    Desai MM, Strzempkowski B, Matin SF, Steinberg AP, Ng C, Meraney AM, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. J Urol. 2005;173(1):38–41. Available from: Scholar
  145. 145.
    Berglund RK, Gill IS, Babineau D, Desai M, Kaouk JH. A prospective comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy in the extremely obese patient. BJU Int. 2007;99(4):871–4. Scholar
  146. 146.
    Feder MT, Patel MB, Melman A, Ghavamian R, Hoenig DM. Comparison of open and laparoscopic nephrectomy in obese and nonobese patients: outcomes stratified by body mass index. J Urol. 2008;180(1):79–83. Available from: Scholar
  147. 147.
    Arfi N, Baldini A, Decaussin-Petrucci M, Ecochard R, Ruffion A, Paparel P. Impact of obesity on complications of laparoscopic simple or radical nephrectomy. Curr Urol. 2015;8(3):149–55. Available from: Scholar
  148. 148.
    Dunn MD, Portis AJ, Shalhav AL, Elbahnasy AM, Heidorn C, McDougall EM, et al. Laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy: a 9-year experience. J Urol. 2000;164(4):1153–9. Available from: Scholar
  149. 149.
    McDougall E, Clayman RV, Elashry OM. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal tumor: the Washington University experience. J Urol. 1996;155(4):1180–5. Available from: Scholar
  150. 150.
    Permpongkosol S, Chan DY, Link RE, Sroka M, Allaf M, Varkarakis I, et al. Long-term survival analysis after laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. J Urol. 2005;174(4 Pt 1):1222–5. Available from: Scholar
  151. 151.
    Ono Y, Kinukawa T, Hattori R, Gotoh M, Kamihira O, Ohshima S. The long-term outcome of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for small renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2001;165(6 Pt 1):1867–70. Available from: Scholar
  152. 152.
    Portis AJ, Yan Y, Landman J, Chen C, Barrett PH, Fentie DD, et al. Long-term followup after laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. J Urol. 2002;167(3):1257–62. Available from: Scholar
  153. 153.
    Saika T, Ono Y, Hattori R, Gotoh M, Kamihira O, Yoshikawa Y, et al. Long-term outcome of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for pathologic T1 renal cell carcinoma. Urology. 2003;62(6):1018–23. Available from: Scholar
  154. 154.
    Pareek G, Hedican SP, Gee JR, Bruskewitz RC, Nakada SY. Meta-analysis of the complications of laparoscopic renal surgery: comparison of procedures and techniques. J Urol. 2006;175(4):1208–13. Available from: Scholar
  155. 155.
    Rogers C, Laungani R, Krane LS, Bhandari A, Bhandari M, Menon M. Robotic nephrectomy for the treatment of benign and malignant disease. BJU Int. 2008;102(11):1660–5. Scholar
  156. 156.
    Asimakopoulos AD, Miano R, Annino F, Micali S, Spera E, Iorio B, et al. Robotic radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review. BMC Urol. 2014;14(1):75. Available from: Scholar
  157. 157.
    Poon SA, Silberstein JL, Chen LY, Ehdaie B, Kim PH, Russo P. Trends in partial and radical nephrectomy: an analysis of case logs from certifying urologists. J Urol. 2013;190(2):464–9. Available from: Scholar
  158. 158.
    Petros FG, Angell JE, Abaza R. Outcomes of robotic nephrectomy including highest-complexity cases: largest series to date and literature review. Urology. 2015;85(6):1352–8. Available from: Scholar
  159. 159.
    Abaza R, Shabsigh A, Castle E, Allaf M, Hu JC, Rogers C, et al. Multi-institutional experience with robotic nephrectomy with inferior vena cava tumor thrombectomy. J Urol. 2016;195(4P1):865–71. Available from: Scholar
  160. 160.
    Abaza R, Gonsenhauser I, Box G, Sharp D, Shabsigh A. Robotic nephrectomy is not costlier than standard laparoscopy when a robot is available. J Urol. 2015;193(4S):e388.Google Scholar
  161. 161.
    Challacombe B, Blecher G, Catterwell R. Expanding indications in robotic upper renal tract surgery: the sky’s the limit. Investig Clin Urol. 2016;57(3):155–6. Scholar
  162. 162.
    Lam W, Chakravorty M, Challacombe B. If the robot is there, why not use it? Why we should use the robot for laparoscopic nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2016.
  163. 163.
    Arun N, Kekre NS, Nath V, Gopalakrishnan G. Is open pyeloplasty still justified? Br J Urol. 1997;80(3):379–81. Available from: Scholar
  164. 164.
    Göğüş C, Karamürsel T, Tokatli Z, Yaman O, Ozdiler E, Göğüş O. Long-term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty in 180 adults in the era of endourologic procedures. Urol Int. 2004;73(1):11–4. Scholar
  165. 165.
    O’Reilly PH, Brooman PJ, Mak S, Jones M, Pickup C, Atkinson C, et al. The long-term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. BJU Int. 2001;87(4):287–9. Available from: Scholar
  166. 166.
    Rassweiler JJ, Subotic S, Feist-Schwenk M, Sugiono M, Schulze M, Teber D, et al. Minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: long-term experience with an algorithm for laser endopyelotomy and laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2007;177(3):1000–5. Available from: Scholar
  167. 167.
    Corbett HJ, Mullassery D. Outcomes of endopyelotomy for pelviureteric junction obstruction in the paediatric population: a systematic review. J Pediatr Urol. 2015;11(6):328–36. Available from: Scholar
  168. 168.
    Klingler HC, Remzi M, Janetschek G, Kratzik C, Marberger MJ. Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol. 2003;44(3):340–5. Available from: Scholar
  169. 169.
    Bauer JJ, Bishoff JT, Moore RG, Chen RN, Iverson AJ, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: assessment of objective and subjective outcome. J Urol. 1999;162(3 Pt 1):692–5. Available from: Scholar
  170. 170.
    Eden CG. Minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a critical analysis of results. Eur Urol. 2007;52(4):983–9. Available from: Scholar
  171. 171.
    Olsen LH, Rawashdeh YF, Jorgensen TM. Pediatric robot assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty: a 5-year experience. J Urol. 2007;178(5):2137–41. discussion 2141. Available from: Scholar
  172. 172.
    Atug F, Woods M, Burgess SV, Castle EP, Thomas R. Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children. J Urol. 2005;174(4 Pt 1):1440–2. Available from: Scholar
  173. 173.
    Lee RS, Retik AB, Borer JG, Peters CA. Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol. 2006;175(2):683–7. discussion 687. Available from: Scholar
  174. 174.
    Gettman MT, Peschel R, Neururer R, Bartsch G. A comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed with the daVinci robotic system versus standard laparoscopic techniques: initial clinical results. Eur Urol. 2002;42(5):453–7. discussion 457–8. Available from: Scholar
  175. 175.
    Patel V. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology. 2005;66(1):45–9. Available from: Scholar
  176. 176.
    Soulié M, Thoulouzan M, Seguin P, Mouly P, Vazzoler N, Pontonnier F, et al. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty with a minimal incision: comparison of two surgical approaches. Urology. 2001;57(3):443–7. Available from: Scholar
  177. 177.
    Zhang X, Li H-Z, Ma X, Zheng T, Lang B, Zhang J, et al. Retrospective comparison of retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol. 2006;176(3):1077–80. Available from: Scholar
  178. 178.
    Calvert RC, Morsy MM, Zelhof B, Rhodes M, Burgess NA. Comparison of laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in 100 patients with pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. Surg Endosc. 2008;22(2):411–4. Scholar
  179. 179.
    Bonnard A, Fouquet V, Carricaburu E, Aigrain Y, El-Ghoneimi A. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. J Urol. 2005;173(5):1710–3. discussion 1713. Available from: Scholar
  180. 180.
    Rivas JG, Gregorio SAY, Sánchez LC, Portella PF, Gómez ÁT, Ledo JC, et al. Evolution in the treatment of the ureteropelvic junction obstruction syndrome. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty. Cent Eur J Urol. 2015;68(3):384–8. Available from:,57,25636,1,1.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. 181.
    Silay MS, Spinoit AF, Undre S, Fiala V, Tandogdu Z, Garmanova T, et al. Global minimally invasive pyeloplasty study in children: results from the pediatric urology expert group of the european association of urology young academic urologists working party. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12(4):229.e1–7. Available from: Scholar
  182. 182.
    Hopf HL, Bahler CD, Sundaram CP. Long-term outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 2016;90:106–11. Available from: Scholar
  183. 183.
    Ganpule A, Jairath A, Singh A, Mishra S, Sabnis R, Desai M. Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children less than 20 kg by weight: single-center experience. World J Urol. 2015;33(11):1867–73. Scholar
  184. 184.
    Passerotti CC, Passerotti AMAMS, Dall’Oglio MF, Leite KRM, Nunes RLV, Srougi M, et al. Comparing the quality of the suture anastomosis and the learning curves associated with performing open, freehand, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in a swine animal model. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208(4):576–86. Available from: Scholar
  185. 185.
    Bhayani SB, Link RE, Varkarakis JM, Kavoussi LR. Complete daVinci versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty: cost analysis. J Endourol. 2005;19(3):327–32. Scholar
  186. 186.
    Weise ES, Winfield HN. Robotic computer-assisted pyeloplasty versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2006;20(10):813–9. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pieter Uvin
    • 1
  • Cedric Leys
    • 2
  • Giorgio Gandaglia
    • 3
  • Nicola Fossati
    • 3
  • Ruben De Groote
    • 1
  • Alexandre Mottrie
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of UrologyOnze-Lieve-Vrouw HospitalAalstBelgium
  2. 2.Faculty of Medicine and Health SciencesGhent University HospitalGhentBelgium
  3. 3.Division of Oncology/Unit of UrologyIRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Urological Research InstituteMilanItaly
  4. 4.ORSI AcademyMelleBelgium

Personalised recommendations