Retroperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy

  • J. Joy Lee
  • James R. PorterEmail author


Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the standard of care in the treatment of small renal masses. However, significant underutilization remains and most PNs are still performed through an open incision despite greater morbidity and longer recovery (Urology, 67(2):254–9, 2006). Though open PNs are often performed retroperitoneally via the flank, retroperitoneal robotic PN has seen less adoption compared to the transperitoneal approach. Smaller working space and limited anatomic landmarks may present an initial challenge, but the retroperitoneal approach is ideal for posterior or lateral masses, as well as those with prior abdominal operations. Our objective is to provide a detailed illustration of our surgical approach to robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy (BJU Int, 114(2):311–3, 2014).


Partial nephrectomy Retroperitoneal approach Robotic surgery Renal cell carcinoma Technique 



Partial nephrectomy


Retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy


Transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy

Supplementary material

Video 8.1

Retroperitoneal access and trocar placement (MOV 127055 kb)

Video 8.2

Management of paranephric fat (MOV 127954 kb)

Video 8.3

Hilar dissection (MOV 64489 kb)

Video 8.4

Tumor exposure (MOV 87369 kb)

Video 8.5

Tumor excision and renorrhaphy (MOV 240397 kb)


  1. 1.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ghani KR, Porter J, Menon M, Rogers C. Robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy: a step-by-step guide. BJU Int. 2014;114(2):311–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Patel M, Porter J. Robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy. World J Urol. 2013;31(6):1377–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wright JL, Porter JR. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. J Urol. 2015;174(3):841–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McDougall EM, Clayman RV. Laparoscopic nephrectomy for benign disease: comparison of the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. J Endourol. 1996;10(1):45–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ng CS, Gill IS, Ramani AP, Steinberg AP, Spaliviero M, Abreu C, Kaouk JH, Desai MM. Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: patient selection and perioperative outcomes. J Urol. 2005;174(3):846–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hu JC, Treat E, Filson CP, McLaren I, Xiong S, Stepanian S, Hafez KS, Weizer AZ, Porter J. Techniques and outcomes of robot-assisted retroperitoneoscopic partial nephrectomy: a multicenter study. Eur Urol. 2014;66(3):542–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kutikov A, Uzzo RG. The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J Urol. 2009;182(3):844–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McAllister M, Bhayani SB, Ong A, Jaffe W, Malkowicz SB, VanArsdalen K, Chow GK, Jarrett TW. Vena caval transection during retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy: report of the complication and review of the literature. J Urol. 2004;172(1):183–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jain S, Nyirenda T, Yates J, Munver R. Incidence of renal artery pseudoaneurysm following open and minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and comparative analysis. J Urol. 2013;189(5):1643–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologySwedish Medical CenterSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations