Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Partial Nephrectomy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Complications in Robotic Urologic Surgery

  • 779 Accesses

Abstract

Over the past few years, RPN has emerged as a strong alternative to OPN and LPN due to several documented advantages including less blood loss, quick recovery, less complications. PN is a major operation and, as such, is associated with a not insignificant complication rate. Complications can be divided into intra- and post-operative categories and address the practical aspects of RPN surgery. Herein, we present, specific complications related to PN surgery and tips for prevention and management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Gill IS, et al. Clinical practice. Small renal mass. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(7):624–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Xia L, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies reporting perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy versus open partial nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2017;31(9):893–909.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gettman MT, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: technique and initial clinical experience with DaVinci robotic system. Urology. 2004;64(5):914–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Caruso RP, et al. Robot assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: initial experience. J Urol. 2006;176(1):36–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kaul S, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Aron M, et al. Robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison from a high-volume centre. BJU Int. 2008;102(1):86–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Deane LA, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rogers CG, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy: a multi-institutional analysis. J Robot Surg. 2008;2(3):141–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rogers CG, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy for renal hilar tumors: a multi-institutional analysis. J Urol. 2008;180(6):2353–6; discussion 2356.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Michli EE, Parra RO. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: initial clinical experience. Urology. 2009;73(2):302–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ho H, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: surgical technique and clinical outcomes at 1 year. BJU Int. 2009;103(5):663–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Benway BM, Bhayani SB. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: evolution and recent advances. Curr Opin Urol. 2010;20(2):119–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Patel MN, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors larger than 4 cm. Eur Urol. 2010;57(2):310–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Scoll BJ, et al. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a large single-institutional experience. Urology. 2010;75(6):1328–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Petros F, 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):642–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ficarra V, et al. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for renal tumors larger than 4 cm: results of a multicenter, international series. World J Urol. 2012;30(5):665–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gupta GN, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for tumors greater than 4 cm and high nephrometry score: feasibility, renal functional, and oncological outcomes with minimum 1 year follow-up. Urol Oncol. 2013;31(1):51–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nguyen MM, Gill IS. Halving ischemia time during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2008;179(2):627–32; discussion 632.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bernhard JC, et al. Personalized 3D printed model of kidney and tumor anatomy: a useful tool for patient education. World J Urol. 2016;34(3):337–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ukimura O, Nakamoto M, Gill IS. Three-dimensional reconstruction of renovascular-tumor anatomy to facilitate zero-ischemia partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;61(1):211–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ficarra V, et al. Preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) classification of renal tumours in patients who are candidates for nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol. 2009;56(5):786–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Leslie S, et al. Renal tumor contact surface area: a novel parameter for predicting complexity and outcomes of partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol. 2014;66(5):884–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Simmons MN, et al. Kidney tumor location measurement using the C index method. J Urol. 2010;183(5):1708–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Davidiuk AJ, et al. Mayo adhesive probability score: an accurate image-based scoring system to predict adherent perinephric fat in partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol. 2014;66(6):1165–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tomaszewski JJ, et al. Internal validation of the renal pelvic score: a novel marker of renal pelvic anatomy that predicts urine leak after partial nephrectomy. Urology. 2014;84(2):351–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Schmit GD, et al. Usefulness of R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scoring system for predicting outcomes and complications of percutaneous ablation of 751 renal tumors. J Urol. 2013;189(1):30–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Chang X, et al. The comparison of R.E.N.A.L., PADUA and centrality index score in predicting perioperative outcomes and complications after laparoscopic radio frequency ablation of renal tumors. J Urol. 2015;194(4):897–902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Abreu AL, et al. Management of large median and lateral intravesical lobes during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2013;27(11):1389–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hassouna HA, Manikandan R. Hemostasis in laparoscopic renal surgery. Indian J Urol. 2012;28(1):3–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Desai MM, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy with superselective versus main artery clamping: a retrospective comparison. Eur Urol. 2014;66(4):713–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gill IS, et al. Improved hemostasis during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy using gelatin matrix thrombin sealant. Urology. 2005;65(3):463–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Novick AC, Campbell S, Belldegrun A, Blute ML, Chow GK, Derweesh IH, et al. Guidelines for management of the clinical stage I renal mass [Internet]. Linthicum: American Urological Association Education and Research Inc.; 2009. [cited 2012 Nov 10]. Available from: https://www.auanet.org/common/pdf/education/clinical-guidance/Renal-Mass.pdf .

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jung S, et al. Risk factors for postoperative hemorrhage after partial nephrectomy. Korean J Urol. 2014;55(1):17–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Satkunasivam R, et al. Robotic unclamped “minimal-margin” partial nephrectomy: ongoing refinement of the anatomic zero-ischemia concept. Eur Urol. 2015;68(4):705–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Tobis S, et al. Near infrared fluorescence imaging with robotic assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: initial clinical experience for renal cortical tumors. J Urol. 2011;186(1):47–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hung AJ, et al. “Trifecta” in partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2013;189(1):36–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Bruner B, et al. Renal nephrometry score is associated with urine leak after partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2011;108(1):67–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Zargar H, et al. Urine leak in minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: analysis of risk factors and role of intraoperative ureteral catheterization. Int Braz J Urol. 2014;40(6):763–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ng CS, et al. Retroperitoneoscopic surgery is not associated with increased carbon dioxide absorption. J Urol. 1999;162(4):1268–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wolf JS Jr, Stoller ML. The physiology of laparoscopy: basic principles, complications and other considerations. J Urol. 1994;152(2 Pt 1):294–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Abreu SC, et al. Thoracic complications during urological laparoscopy. J Urol. 2004;171(4):1451–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Robotic & Laparoscopic Surgery, Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA

    Andre Luis de Castro Abreu MD, Giovanni Cacciamani MD & Inderbir S. Gill MD

  2. Clinical Urology, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA

    Andre Luis de Castro Abreu MD

  3. Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy

    Giovanni Cacciamani MD

  4. Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA

    Giovanni Cacciamani MD

Authors
  1. Andre Luis de Castro Abreu MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giovanni Cacciamani MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Inderbir S. Gill MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Inderbir S. Gill MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

    René Sotelo

  2. Department of Urology, Hospital CIMA, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico

    Juan Arriaga

  3. USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

    Monish Aron

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

de Castro Abreu, A.L., Cacciamani, G., Gill, I.S. (2018). Partial Nephrectomy. In: Sotelo, R., Arriaga, J., Aron, M. (eds) Complications in Robotic Urologic Surgery . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62277-4_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62277-4_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62276-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62277-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation