Robot-assisted vs. Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: utilization rates and perioperative outcomes

Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System Detroit, MI, USA.
International braz j urol: official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology (Impact Factor: 0.88). 05/2013; 39(3):377-386. DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2013.03.11
Source: PubMed


To examine the effect of surgical approach on perioperative morbidity and mortality after partial nephrectomy.

Materials and methods:
Within the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, patients who underwent RAPN or LPN between October 2008 and December 2009 were identified. Propensity-based matching was performed to adjust for potential baseline differences between the two groups. The rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications, blood transfusions, prolonged length of stay, and in-hospital mortality, stratified according to RAPN vs. LPN, were compared.

Overall, 851 (72.5%) patients underwent RAPN and 323 (27.5%) underwent LPN. For RAPN and LPN respectively, the following rates were recorded in the propensity-score matched cohort: blood transfusions, 4.5 vs. 6.8% (p = 0.223); intraoperative complications, 5.2 vs. 2.6% (p = 0.096); postoperative complications, 10.6 vs. 13.5% (p = 0.268); prolonged length of stay, 6.8 vs. 9.4% (p = 0.238); in-hospital mortality, 0.0 vs. 0.0%.

RAPN has supplanted LPN as the predominant minimally invasive surgical approach for renal masses. Perioperative outcomes after RAPN and LPN are comparable. Interpretation of these findings needs to take into account the lack of adjustment for case complexity and surgical expertise.

7 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Historically, open radical nephrectomy (ORN) represented the standard of care for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC). While the incidence of T1 RCC is rising, treatment options are developing fast and the standard of care according to European and American guidelines has changed to partial nephrectomy (PN), or laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in patients not suitable for PN. To assess the implementation of guideline recommendations and to profile recent surgical and technical innovations, we reviewed the current literature. We observed that ORN still represents the most commonly used treatment in T1 RCC patients. Utilization of PN increased over time but implementation is still in progress. Whereas PN is frequently used in tertiary care centers, population-based studies suggest discrepancies in the diffusion of standard of care treatments. Alternative minimally invasive approaches for PN are available but their superiority is not yet proven. Further efforts in improving the training of urologic surgeons are required to continue the implementation of guideline recommendations.
    Current Urology Reports 02/2014; 15(2):383. DOI:10.1007/s11934-013-0383-0 · 1.51 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: The study compared the transurethral resection in saline (TURis), transurethral vaporization in saline (TUVis), bipolar plasma enucleation of the prostate (BPEP), and open prostatectomy (OP) in a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled clinical setting exclusively involving large prostate patients. Patients and methods: During a 4½ year enrollment period, 320 cases of prostate volume over 80 mL, maximum flow rate (Qmax) below 10 mL/second, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) over 19, or urinary retention were included in the trial and equally randomized in the four study arms. Patients were assessed preoperatively as well as at the 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up checkups using the IPSS, quality of life (QoL) score, Qmax, postvoiding residual urinary volume (PVR), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Results: Similar preoperative parameters were established in the four series. OP and BPEP were characterized by resembling operating times, while TURis and TUVis displayed prolonged surgical durations. TURis emphasized a substantially decreased mean resected tissue weight. TUVis showed the lowest mean hemoglobin level drop, followed by TURis and BPEP (equivalent results) and finally OP (highest bleeding). OP described the longest mean catheterization period and hospital stay, followed by TURis, and afterward by TUVis and BPEP (similar data). During the follow-up period, statistically equivalent IPSS, QoL, Qmax, and PVR outcomes were established for OP, BPEP, and TURis. TUVis displayed significantly smaller Qmax improvements, but similar other functional features. Significantly lower mean PSA levels were determined secondary to OP and BPEP when compared to bipolar resection and subsequently to vaporization. Conclusions: OP and BPEP emphasized the highest surgical efficiency (prolonged postoperative recovery for OP), while TUVis displayed the lowest hemorrhagic risks. On the medium term, generally resembling functional outcomes were determined for the four techniques, with significantly decreased mean PSA values secondary to OP and BPEP.
    Journal of endourology / Endourological Society 08/2014; 29(3). DOI:10.1089/end.2014.0493 · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: We sought to evaluate the financial impact of robotic technology for partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) in the state of Maryland. Methods: The Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission (HSCRC) documents all acute care hospital charges data. This database was queried for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted RN and PN from 2008 to 2012. Total hospital charge, subcharge, and length of stay (LOS) were analyzed separately for RN and PN. Results: Overall, 2834 patients were identified. Of those, 282 were laparoscopic PN (LPN), 1078 robot-assisted PN (RPN), 1098 laparoscopic RN (LRN), and 376 robot-assisted RN (RRN). For PN, the total hospital charge was $19,062 for LPN and $18,255 for RPN (P=0.138), with a charge savings of $807 per case in favor of robotics. For RN, the total hospital charge was $23,391 for RRN and $18,280 for LRN (P=0.004), with a charge premium of $5111 for robotic cases. LOS was shorter for RPN compared with LPN (2.51 vs 2.99 days, P<0.0001) and for RRN compared with LRN (3.52 vs 3.98, P=0.0498). Conclusions: RPN is associated with lower hospital charges than LPN, while RRN is associated with higher hospital charges than LRN. Savings for RPN are driven by decreased room and board charge, while the premium for RRN is driven by higher operating room and supply charges. Because RRN use is increasing, the financial implications of RRN use for routine cases warrants further study.
    Journal of Endourology 08/2014; DOI:10.1089/end.2014.0559 · 1.71 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications