Advertisement

Outcomes and Complications of Robotic Kidney Surgery

  • Alessandro Crestani
  • Marta Rossanese
  • Valeria Lami
  • Francesco Esperto
  • Gianluca Giannarini
  • Vincenzo FicarraEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

From its first developments, robot-assisted surgery had a rapid and wide diffusion into the field of urology and its indications have been expanded to several urological procedures and, as experience increased in the last years, even to challenging and complex cases with an acceptably low complication rate in the hands of high-volume surgeons. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is currently the most common treatment modality for surgical management of clinically localized prostate cancer in the US. The consequence of the widespread adoption of RARP was the use of the robotic platform to treat other urological malignancies as well as benign conditions.

Keywords

Robotic surgery Radical nephrectomy Robotic pyeloplasty Partial nephrectomy Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy Robot-assisted radical nephrectomy Robot-assisted pyeloplasty Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy Renal surgery Nephron sparing surgery 

References

  1. 1.
    Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R. Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology. 2002;60:509–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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;64:914–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rose K, Khan S, Godbole H, Olsburgh J, Dasgupta P, GUY’S and St. Thomas’ Robotics Group. Robotic assisted retroperitoneoscopic nephroureterectomy – first experience and the hybrid port technique. Int J Clin Pract. 2006;60:12–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hemal AK, Kumar A. A prospective comparison of laparoscopic and robotic radical nephrectomy for T1-2N0M0 renal cell carcinoma. World J Urol. 2009;27:89–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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;102:1660–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abaza R. Initial series of robotic radical nephrectomy with vena caval tumor thrombectomy. Eur Urol. 2011;59:652–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang B, Li H, Ma X, Zhang X, Gu L, Li X, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic inferior vena cava thrombectomy: different sides require different techniques. Eur Urol. 2016;69(6):1112–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sukumar S, Sun M, Karakiewicz PI, Friedman AA, Chun FK, Sammon J, et al. National trends and disparities in the use of minimally invasive adult pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2012;188:913–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Autorino R, Eden C, El-Ghoneimi A, Guazzoni G, Buffi N, Peters CA, et al. Robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2014;65:430–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dangle PP, Akhavan A, Odeleye M, Avery D, Lendvay T, Koh CJ, et al. Ninety-day perioperative complications of pediatric robotic urological surgery: a multi-institutional study. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12:102.e1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patel V. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology. 2005;66:45–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Olsen LH, Rawashdeh YF, Jorgensen TM. Pediatric robot assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty: a 5-year experience. J Urol. 2007;178:2137–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwentner C, Pelzer A, Neururer R, Springer B, Horninger W, Bartsch G, et al. Robotic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty: 5-year experience of one centre. BJU Int. 2007;100:880–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mufarrij PW, Woods M, Shah OD, Palese MA, Berger AD, Thomas R, et al. Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience. J Urol. 2008;180:1391–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cestari A, Buffi NM, Lista G, Sangalli M, Scapaticci E, Fabbri F, et al. Retroperitoneal and transperitoneal robot-assisted pyeloplasty in adults: techniques and results. Eur Urol. 2010;58:711–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gupta NP, Nayyar R, Hemal AK, Mukherjee S, Kumar R, Dogra PN. Outcome analysis of robotic pyeloplasty: a large single-centre experience. BJU Int. 2010;105:980–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Etafy M, Pick D, Said S, Hsueh T, Kerbl D, Mucksavage P, et al. Robotic pyeloplasty: the University of California-Irvine experience. J Urol. 2011;185:2196–200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Minnillo BJ, Cruz JA, Sayao RH, Passerotti CC, Houck CS, Meier PM, et al. Long-term experience and outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children and young adults. J Urol. 2011;185:1455–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Singh P, Dogra PN, Kumar R, Gupta NP, Nayak B, Seth A. Outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: a single center experience. J Endourol. 2012;26:249–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sivaraman A, Leveillee RJ, Patel MB, Chauhan S, Bracho JE 2nd, Moore CR, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a multi-institutional experience. Urology. 2012;79:351–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Canfield S, Dabestani S, Hofmann F, Hora M, et al. EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2014 update. Eur Urol. 2015;67:913–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Long JA, Yakoubi R, Lee B, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for complex tumors: comparison of perioperative outcomes. Eur Urol. 2012;61:1257–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Petros F, Sukumar S, Haber GP, et al. Multi-institutional analysis of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for renal tumors >4 cm versus ≤4 cm in 445 consecutive patients. J Endourol. 2012;26(6):642.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tanagho YS, Kaouk JH, Allaf ME, Rogers CG, Stifelman MD, Kaczmarek BF, et al. Perioperative complications of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: analysis of 886 patients at 5 United States centers. Urology. 2013;81:573–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eyraud R, Long JA, Snow-Lisy D, Autorino R, Hillyer S, Klink J, et al. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for hilar tumors: perioperative outcomes. Urology. 2013;81:1246–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brandao LF, Zargar H, Autorino R, Akca O, Laydner H, Samarasekera D, et al. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for ≥7 cm renal masses: a comparative outcome analysis. Urology. 2014;84:602–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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;116:407–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lista G, Buffi NM, Lughezzani G, Lazzeri M, Abrate A, Mistretta A, et al. Margin, ischemia, and complications system to report perioperative outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy: a European multicenter observational study (EMOS project). Urology. 2015;85:589–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Abdel Raheem A, Alatawi A, Kim DK, Sheikh A, Alabdulaali I, Han WK, et al. Outcomes of high-complexity renal tumours with a preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) score of ≥10 after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy with a median 46.5-month follow-up: a tertiary centre experience. BJU Int. 2016. [Epub ahead of print];118:770.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ficarra V, Bhayani S, Porter J, Buffi N, Lee R, Cestari A, et al. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for renal tumors larger than 4 cm: results of a multicenter, international series. World J Urol. 2012;30:665–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    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;114:903–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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;117:126–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Janda G, Deal A, Yang H, Nielsen M, Smith A, Pruthi RS, et al. Single-institution experience with robotic partial nephrectomy for renal masses greater than 4 cm. J Endourol. 2016;30:384–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ahmad G, O’Flynn H, Duffy JM, Phillips K, Watson A. Laparoscopic entry techniques. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(2):CD006583.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006583.pub3.
  35. 35.
    Ficarra V, Bhayani S, Porter J, Buffi N, Lee R, Cestari A, et al. Predictors of warm ischemia time and perioperative complications in a multicenter, international series of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;61:395–402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kim EH, Larson JA, Figenshau M, Figenshau RS. Perioperative complications of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Curr Urol Rep. 2014;15:377.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Marta Rossanese, Vito Palumbo, Michele Zazzara, et al. TachoSil use in complex open partial nephrectomy cases. Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2016;68(2 Suppl. 1).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Potretzke AM, Knight BA, Zargar H, Kaouk JH, Barod R, Rogers CG, et al. Urinary fistula after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a multicentre analysis of 1791 patients. BJU Int. 2016;117:131–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    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;64:744–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Andrade HS, Zargar H, Caputo PA, Akca O, Kara O, Ramirez D, et al. Five-year oncologic outcomes after transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2016;69(6):1149–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Masson-Lecomte A, Bensalah K, Seringe E, Vaessen C, de la Taille A, Doumerc N, et al. A prospective comparison of surgical and pathological outcomes obtained after robot-assisted or pure laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in moderate to complex renal tumours: results from a French multicentre collaborative study. BJU Int. 2013;111:256–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tabayoyong W, Abouassaly R, Kiechle JE, Cherullo EE, Meropol NJ, Shah ND, et al. Variation in surgical margin status by surgical approach among patients undergoing partial nephrectomy for small renal masses. J Urol. 2015;194:1548–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Benway BM, Wang AJ, Cabello JM, Bhayani SB. Robotic partial nephrectomy with sliding-clip renorrhaphy: technique and outcomes. Eur Urol. 2009;55:592–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mottrie A, De Naeyer G, Schatteman P, Carpentier P, Sangalli M, Ficarra V. Impact of the learning curve on perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy for parenchymal renal tumours. Eur Urol. 2010;58:127–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Aboumarzouk OM, Stein RJ, Eyraud R, Haber GP, Chlosta PL, Somani BK, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2012;62:1023–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Froghi S, Ahmed K, Khan MS, Dasgupta P, Challacombe B. Evaluation of robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for small renal tumours (T1a). BJU Int. 2013;112:E322–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    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;67:891–901.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    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;189:1236–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kaczmarek BF, Tanagho YS, Hillyer SP, Mullins JK, Diaz M, Trinh QD, et al. Off-clamp robot-assisted partial nephrectomy preserves renal function: a multi-institutional propensity score analysis. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):988–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zargar H, Akca O, Autorino R, Brandao LF, Laydner H, Krishnan J, et al. Ipsilateral renal function preservation after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN): an objective analysis using mercapto-acetyltriglycine (MAG3) renal scan data and volumetric assessment. BJU Int. 2015;115:787–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Crestani
    • 1
  • Marta Rossanese
    • 2
  • Valeria Lami
    • 3
  • Francesco Esperto
    • 4
  • Gianluca Giannarini
    • 1
  • Vincenzo Ficarra
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Urology UnitMedical Centre Hospital Santa Maria della MisericordiaUdineItaly
  2. 2.Department of Human and Pediatric Pathology “Gaetano Barresi”Urologic Section – University of MessinaMessinaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Oncological, Surgical and Gastroenterological SciencesUrology Clinic, University of PaduaPaduaItaly
  4. 4.Sant’Andrea Hospital, UrologySapienza University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations