Robotic-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy for Kidney Cancer: A Health Technology Assessment.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ontario Health (Quality)
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10656046 | biostudies-literature | 2023
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Robotic-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy for Kidney Cancer: A Health Technology Assessment.
Ontario health technology assessment series 20231010 7
<h4>Background</h4>Robotic-assisted surgery has been used in Ontario hospitals for over a decade, but there is no public funding for the robotic systems or the disposables required to perform robotic-assisted surgeries ("robotics disposables"). We conducted a health technology assessment of robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy for the treatment of kidney cancer (RAPN). Nephrectomy may be radical (the surgical removal of an entire kidney, nearby adrenal gland and lymph nodes, and other surroundin ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify renal function outcomes after robotic multiplex partial nephrectomy (RMxPNx), we reviewed our institutional database at the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. To our knowledge, we present the largest series of RMxPNx renal function outcomes to date. Robotic partial nephrectomy has been employed for oncologic control and to prevent dialysis dependence in hereditary multifocal renal cell carcinoma conditions. We have termed robotic surgery on a single kidney with three or more lesions a RMxPNx.Materials and methodsWe evaluated patients from a prospectively maintained database at a single institution (NIH/NCI) that underwent RMxPNx from 2007 to 2013. Demographic and operative data were compiled with statistical analysis with T test performed to determine renal function outcomes.ResultsA total of 54 patients underwent RMxPNx. Mean number of tumors removed was 8.63 (range 3-52). Mean preoperative creatinine and eGFR were 1.02 ± 0.26 mg/dL and 85.4 ± 21.5 mL/min, respectively. Postoperatively, creatinine increased from baseline by 0.45 mg/dL (p < 0.001). Similarly, a mean decrease in eGFR by 24.6 mL/min was observed (p < 0.001). At 3-month follow-up, the creatinine increase from baseline was 0.05 mg/dL (p = 0.10) and mean decrease in eGFR was 3.01 mL/min (p = 0.21). When stratifying based on preoperative CKD stages I-III, similar results were observed.ConclusionRobotic multiplex partial nephrectomy is a safe and feasible approach to patients with multifocal renal masses. These complex surgeries have a demonstrated learning curve, but this minimally invasive approach for nephron-sparing surgery allows patients to preserve renal function where they would otherwise require open surgery or a radical nephrectomy.
| S-EPMC5090974 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIn 2019, our center attempted to transition all partial nephrectomies (PNs) to robotic-assisted laparoscopic PN (RALPN). The purpose of this study was to compare RALPN outcomes to laparoscopic PN (LPN) and open PN (OPN) at our institution, as there is limited literature from Canadian centers.MethodsIn this single-center, two-surgeon, retrospective cohort study, we compared RALPN outcomes during the early phase of our robotics program to OPN and LPN performed just before the introduction of RALPN.ResultsA total of 106 patients underwent OPN, 83 LPN, and 82 RALPN during the study period. Median RALPN REN AL score was 7 vs. 6 for LPN (p<0.05) and 8 for OPN (p=0.10). Median RALPN length of stay (LOS) was two days vs. three and four days for LPN and OPN (p<0.05), respectively. OPN median procedure time was 104 minutes vs. 94 and 82 minutes for LPN and RALPN (p<0.05), respectively. Median OPN operating room (OR) time was 160 minutes vs. 150 and 146 minutes for LPN and RALPN (p<0.05), respectively. There were no significant differences in intraoperative (p=0.92) or postoperative complication rates (p=0.47). RALPN warm ischemia time (WIT) was 17 minutes vs. 14.5 and 15 minutes for OPN and LPN (p<0.05), respectively. Median RALPN estimated blood loss (EBL) was 165 ml vs. 250 ml for OPN (p<0.05) and 125 ml for LPN (p=0.15).ConclusionsAlthough patients who underwent RALPN had longer WIT, they had similar rates of complications, required less total OR time, and had shorter procedure times and LOS compared with OPN and LPN despite similar REN AL scores compared to OPN and greater scores than LPN.
| S-EPMC11326722 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSince its introduction, robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) has become increasingly popular, in part as a result of several advances in technique. The purpose of this paper is to review these techniques as well as the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes after RPN and compare these outcomes to those after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN).MethodsA literature review was performed to identify papers and meta-analyses that compared outcomes after RPN to OPN or LPN. All meta-analyses were included in this review.ResultsTechnical advances that have contributed to improved outcomes after RPN include the first-assistant sparing technique, the sliding clip technique, early unclamping, and selective arterial clamping. All five meta-analyses that compared LPN to RPN found that RPN was associated with a shorter warm ischemia time (WIT), but that there were no differences in estimated blood loss (EBL) or operative times. Those meta-analyses that compared intraoperative and postoperative complications, conversion to open or radical nephrectomy, length of stay (LOS), and postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) either found no difference or favored RPN. Four meta-analyses compared RPN to OPN. All four found that EBL, LOS, and postoperative complications favor RPN. There were no significant differences in intraoperative complications, conversion to radical nephrectomy, or positive surgical margin rates. One meta-analysis found that eGFR was better after RPN. Operative time and WIT generally favored OPN.ConclusionsSeveral techniques have been described to improve outcomes after RPN. We believe that the literature shows that RPN is as good if not better than both LPN and OPN and has become the preferred surgical approach.
| S-EPMC6961424 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The management of de novo kidney tumors (DKTs) after liver transplantation (LT) is challenging due to previous transplant surgery and calcineurin inhibitors (CNI)-related nephrotoxicity. Minimally invasive renal-sparing strategies like robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) are favored, but a transperitoneal approach may be limited by the previous transplant surgery and the location of the DKT; in such cases, CT-guided cryoablation may be an alternative option. In this retrospective cohort study, we aimed to compare RPN and cryoablation for the treatment of DKT in LT recipients. The primary endpoints were the efficacy (R0 resection in RPN, absence of the tumor at first follow-up for cryoablation) and the safety of the procedures (postoperative morbidity and increase in creatine level). The periprocedural costs and the oncologic efficacy (recurrence and overall survival) were the secondary endpoints. Twelve LT recipients (91.7% males, mean age 65 years) underwent RPN (n = 6) or cryoablation (n = 6) for DKT; the median interval between LT and diagnosis of DKT was 142.5 vs. 117.5 months, respectively. Efficacy was obtained in all patients after RPN and cryoablation. Postoperative morbidity was 16.7% in each group, and the postoperative increase in creatinine values was similar. Hospital stay was shorter following cryoablation vs. RPN (3.1 vs. 6.7 days; p = 0.03). The mean procedural costs were higher for RPN. There was no mortality and none of the patients had signs of recurrence after a median follow-up of 40.5 months. Both RPN and CT-guided cryoablation were safe and effective for the treatment of selected patients with DKT after LT. When applicable, cryoablation may be cost-effective and provide faster recovery.
| S-EPMC11856640 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the gold standard treatment for appropriately selected renal masses. Recent surgical advancements and adoption of the robotic technique has led to greater adoption of nephron-sparing surgery. Robotic PN was initially described via the transperitoneal (TP) approach, however, retroperitoneal (RP) access is possible and in some cases more desirable. In the RP approach, the kidney is accessed from its posterior surface and the intraperitoneal space is avoided. The RP approach to PN has the benefit of avoiding intraperitoneal viscera and colonic mobilization in patients with extensive prior abdominal surgery. The technique also eliminates the need for renal unit rotation in patients with posterior tumors and affords access to masses directly posterior to the renal hilum. The RP and TP approach to PN have shown similar oncologic and perioperative outcomes. Several recent studies have reported shorter operative times and lengths of stay (LOS) with comparable warm ischemia times for the RP approach when compared to transperitoneal PN (tPN). Given the indispensable deliverables of this approach in select patients, robotic retroperitoneal PN (rPN) should be in the armamentarium of a versatile urologic kidney surgeon. This review describes the current state of rPN and compares the indications and outcomes of the TP and RP approaches.
| S-EPMC8185662 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We compared the outcomes of robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN) using contemporary data to respond to unmet clinical needs. Data from patients included in the registry who underwent partial nephrectomy between January 01, 2014 and June 30, 2017 within 20 centres of the French Network for Research on Kidney Cancer UroCCR were collected (NCT03293563). Statistical methods included adjusted multivariable analyses. Rates of peri- and post-operative transfusion, and of surgical revision, were lower in the RPN (n = 1434) than the OPN (n = 571) group (2.9% vs. 6.0%, p = 0.0012; 3.8% vs. 11.5%, p < 0.0001; 2.4% vs. 6.7%, p < 0.0001, respectively). In multivariable analyses, RPN was independently associated with fewer early post-operative complications than OPN (overall: odds-ratio [95% confidence interval, CI] = 0.48 [0.35-0.66]; severe: 0.29 [0.16-0.54], p < 0.0001 for both) and shorter hospital stays (34% [30%; 37%], p < 0.0001). RPN was also a significantly associated with a decresedrisk of post-operative acute renal failure, and new-onset chronic kidney disease at 3 and 12 months post-surgery. There were no between-group differences in oncological outcomes. In comparison with OPN, RPN was associated with improved peri- and post-operative morbidity, better functional outcomes, and shorter hospital stays. Our results support the use of RPN, even for large and complex tumours.
| S-EPMC9643517 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionRandomised controlled trials comparing robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and open PN (OPN) are lacking. Therefore, we aim to report the study protocol and a trial update for a randomised controlled feasibility trial comparing RAPN versus OPN for renal neoplasms.Methods and analysisThe ROBOtic assisted versus conventional Open Partial nephrectomy II trial is designed as a single-centre, randomised, open-label, feasibility trial. Participation will be offered to patients with renal neoplasms and deemed feasible for both, OPN and RAPN. We aim to enrol 50 patients within 15 months using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary endpoint of the trial is feasibility of recruitment and will be successful if one third of eligible patients agree to participate. Secondary endpoints include perioperative results, health-related quality of life, inflammatory response as well as surgical ergonomics of the operating team. If the primary outcome, feasibility of recruitment, is successful, the secondary results of the trial will be used for planning a confirmative phase III trial.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the local institutional review board (Ethik-Kommission II at Heidelberg University: 2020-542N). Results will be made publicly available in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at appropriate congresses and social media.Trial registration numberNCT04534998.
| S-EPMC8572388 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveDespite the wide-spread adoption of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), the cost-benefit implications for partial (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) versus laparoscopic surgery (Lap) is not well established. We sought to examine the trend of adoption and 1-year healthcare expenditure of PN and RN, and compare 1-year expenditures of RAS versus Lap for PN and RN.Patients and methodsThis cohort study used the MerativeTM MarketScan® Databases between 2013 and 2020. A total of 5,353 patients with kidney cancer undergoing PN (2,980, 55.7%) or RN (2,373, 44.3%). We compared open-conversion, length of stay (LOS), index expenditure, 1-year healthcare expenditure and utilization, and missed work-days between RAS and Lap for PN and RN.ResultsAdoption of PN increased overtime (47.0% to 55.8%), mainly driven by robotic PN increase. Among PN, RAS had lower open-conversion, shorter LOS and lower index expenditure than Lap. Among RN, RAS had shorter LOS, and similar open-conversion and index expenditures. During 1-year post-discharge, RAS had lower hospital outpatient visits (IRR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.85, 0.99, p = 0.029) and office-based visits (IRR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.86, 0.96, p = 0.002) for PN, translating to a 1-day less (95% CI = 0.25, 1.75, p = 0.008) missed from work for RAS. Following RN, RAS had lower 1-year readmission than Lap (O.R = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.55, 0.94, p = 0.018). RAS and Lap had comparable 1-year post-discharge expenditures for both PN (mean difference, MD = -$475, 95% CI = -$4362, $3412, p = 0.810) and RN (MD = -$4,204, 95% CI = -$13,837, $5430, p = 0.404).ConclusionAt index surgery, RAS was associated with shorter LOS for both PN and RN, and lower open-conversion and expenditures for PN. RAS and Lap had comparable 1-year total expenditures, despite lower healthcare visits for RAS.
| S-EPMC10576279 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is increasingly being employed in the management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and it is expanding in the field of complex renal tumors. The aim of this systematic review was to consolidate and assess the results of RAPN when dealing with entirely central hilar masses and to examine the various methods used to address the surgical difficulties associated with them. Methods: A thorough literature search in September 2023 across various databases focused on RAPN for renal hilar masses, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. The primary goal was to evaluate RAPN's surgical and functional outcomes, with a secondary aim of examining different surgical techniques. Out of 1250 records, 13 full-text manuscripts were reviewed. Results: Evidence is growing in favor of RAPN for renal hilar masses. Despite a predominance of retrospective studies and a lack of long-term data, RAPN shows positive surgical outcomes and preserves renal function without compromising cancer treatment effectiveness. Innovative suturing and clamping methods are emerging in surgical management. Conclusions: RAPN is a promising technique for managing renal hilar masses in RCC, offering effective surgical outcomes and renal function preservation. The study highlights the need for more long-term data and prospective studies to further validate these findings.
| S-EPMC10886610 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextThe resection technique used to excise tumor during robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) is of paramount importance in achieving optimal clinical outcomes.ObjectiveTo provide an overview of the different resection techniques used during RPN, and a pooled analysis of comparative studies.Evidence acquisitionThe systematic review was conducted according to established principles (PROSPERO: CRD42022371640) on November 7, 2022. A population (P: adult patients undergoing RPN), intervention (I: enucleation), comparator (C: enucleoresection or wedge resection), outcome (O: outcome measurements of interest), and study design (S) framework was prespecified to assess study eligibility. Studies reporting a detailed description of resection techniques and/or evaluating the impact of resection technique on outcomes of surgery were included.Evidence synthesisResection techniques used during RPN can be broadly classified as resection (non-anatomic) or enucleation (anatomic). A standardized definition for these is lacking. Out of 20 studies retrieved, nine compared "standard" resection versus enucleation. A pooled analysis did not reveal significant differences in terms of operative time, ischemia time, blood loss, transfusions, or positive margins. Significant differences favoring enucleation were found for clamping management (odds ratio [OR] for renal artery clamping 3.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-10.88; p = 0.03), overall complications (OR for occurrence 0.55, 95% CI 0.34-0.87; p = 0.01) major complications (OR for occurrence 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.79; p = 0.009), length of stay (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.72 d, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.45; p < 0.001), and decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (WMD -2.64 ml/min, 95% CI -5.15 to -0.12; p = 0.04).ConclusionsThere is heterogeneity in the reporting of resection techniques used during RPN. The urological community must improve the quality of reporting and research produced accordingly. Positive margins are not specifically related to the resection technique. Focusing on studies comparing standard resection versus enucleation, advantages with tumor enucleation in terms of avoidance of artery clamping, overall/major complications, length of stay, and renal function were found. These data should be considered when planning the RPN resection strategy.Patient summaryWe reviewed studies on robotic surgery for partial kidney removal using different techniques to cut away the kidney tumor. We found that a technique called "enucleation" was associated with similar cancer control outcomes in comparison to the standard technique and had fewer complications, better kidney function after surgery, and a shorter hospital stay.
| S-EPMC10172691 | biostudies-literature