Abstract
Although retroperitoneal surgery has demonstrated a better quality of recovery compared to transperitoneal routes, Retroperitoneal Robot Assisted Partial Nephrectomy (RRAPN) remains proportionally infrequent. As the boundaries of what is achievable robotically continue to be pushed, we present our experience at a high-volume tertiary referral centre that specialises in retroperitoneal surgery, exploring its feasibility as standard of care in the management of small renal masses. A prospective database of 784 RAPNs (2009–2020) was reviewed and 721 RRAPNs (92%) were performed at our centre. In our practice, we utilise a four-port approach to RRAPN. Patient, tumour and operative characteristics were assessed and both oncological outcomes and trifecta and pentafecta achievements were determined. Pentafecta was defined as achieving trifecta (negative surgical margin, no post-operative complications and WIT of < 25 min) plus over 90% estimated GFR preservation and no CKD stage upgrading at 1 year. Multivariate analysis was conducted to predict peri-operative factors which may prevent achieving a trifecta/pentafecta outcome. From 784 cases, 112 RAPNs were performed for imperative reasons, whilst the remainder were elective. Mean BMI ± s.d amongst our cohort was 28.6 ± 5.7. Mean tumour size was 3.1 cm (range 0.8–10.5 cm) and 47% of cases were stratified as intermediate/high risk using R.E.N.A.L nephrometry scoring. Forty-six patients had lesions in a hilar location, and 31% were anterior. Median blood loss was 30mls, with an open conversion rate of 1% and transfusion rate of 1.6%. Median warm ischaemic time (WIT) was 21 min, positive surgical margins were found in 4% and our post-operative Clavien 3/ > complication rate was 2.6%. We had a 1-day median length of stay with a 30 day readmission rate of 2%. Of 631 patients (80%) with a definitive histological diagnosis of cancer, 23% had T1b/ > disease. Over a mean 15 month follow-up period (range 1–125 months), 2% of patients developed recurrences and our cohort demonstrated a 99% 5 year cancer specific survival. Trifecta was achieved in 67% of cases and pentafecta in 47%. Age (p = 0.05), operative time (p = 0.008), pT1b tumours (p = 0.03), R.E.N.A.L score and blood loss (p = 0.001) were found to statistically significantly influence achievement of trifecta. Pentafecta achievement was influenced by R.E.N.A.L score (p = 0.008), operative time (p = 0.001) and blood loss (p = 0.001). We demonstrate the retroperitoneal approach in RAPN is feasible and safe irrespective of lesion location and complexity. In the hands of high-volume centres that are skilled in the retroperitoneal approach the benefits of retroperitoneal surgery can be extended even to challenging cohorts of patients without compromising their oncological or functional outcomes.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Data is available on request.
References
Campbell SC, Clark PE, Chang SS, Karam JA, Souter L, Uzzo RG (2021) Renal mass and localized renal cancer: evaluation, management, and follow-up: AUA guideline: part I. J Urol 206(2):199–208. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001911
Ljungberg B et al (2019) European association of urology guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2019 update. Eur Urol 75(5):799–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.011
Patel HD et al (2013) Trends in renal surgery: robotic technology is associated with increased use of partial nephrectomy. J Urol 189(4):1229–1235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.10.024
Alameddine M et al (2019) Trends in utilization of robotic and open partial nephrectomy for management of cT1 renal masses. Eur Urol Focus 5(3):482–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.12.006
Abaza R, Gerhard RS, Martinez O (2020) Feasibility of adopting retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy after extensive transperitoneal experience. World J Urol 38(5):1087–1092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02935-z
Hughes-Hallett A, Patki P, Patel N, Barber NJ, Sullivan M, Thilagarajah R (2013) Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a comparison of the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. J Endourol 27(7):869–874. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0023
Marconi L, Challacombe B (2018) Robotic partial nephrectomy for posterior renal tumours: retro or transperitoneal approach? Eur Urol Focus 4(5):632–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.08.003
Nadu A et al (2005) Ventilatory and hemodynamic changes during retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy: a prospective real-time comparison. J Urol 174(3):1013–1017. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000169456.00399.de
Kutikov A, Uzzo RG (2009) The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size location and depth. J Urol 182(3):844–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.035
Malki M, Oakley J, Hussain M, Barber N (2019) Retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in obese patients. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 29(8):1027–1032. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2019.0273
Porpiglia F et al (2020) Transperitoneal vs retroperitoneal minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: comparison of perioperative outcomes and functional follow-up in a large multi-institutional cohort (The RECORD 2 Project). Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07919-4
Gin GE, Maschino AC, Spaliviero M, Vertosick EA, Bernstein ML, Coleman JA (2014) Comparison of perioperative outcomes of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal minimally invasive partial nephrectomy after adjusting for tumor complexity. Urology 84(6):1355–1360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.07.045
Choo SH et al (2014) Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy: matched-pair comparisons by nephrometry scores. World J Urol 32(6):1523–1529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1312-7
Kim EH, Larson JA, Potretzke AM, Hulsey NK, Bhayani SB, Figenshau RS (2015) Retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for posterior renal masses is associated with earlier hospital discharge: a single-institution retrospective comparison. J Endourol 29(10):1137–1142. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2015.0076
Sharma P, McCormick BZ, Zargar-Shoshtari K, Sexton WJ (2016) Is surgeon intuition equivalent to models of operative complexity in determining the surgical approach for nephron sparing surgery? Indian J Urol 32(2):124–131. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.179191
Maurice MJ et al (2017) Robotic partial nephrectomy for posterior tumors through a retroperitoneal approach offers decreased length of stay compared with the transperitoneal approach: a propensity-matched analysis. J Endourol 31(2):158–162. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0603
Stroup SP et al (2017) Comparison of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy for pentafecta perioperative and renal functional outcomes. World J Urol 35(11):1721–1728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2062-0
Laviana AA, Tan HJ, Hu JC, Weizer AZ, Chang SS, Barocas DA (2018) Retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair, bicenter analysis with cost comparison using time-driven activity-based costing. Curr Opin Urol 28(2):108–114. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000483
Arora S et al (2018) Retroperitoneal vs Transperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: comparison in a multi-institutional setting. Urology 120:131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.06.026
Harke NN et al (2020) Retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy: a multicenter matched-pair analysis. Eur Urol Focus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.08.012
Paulucci DJ et al (2019) A multi-institutional propensity score matched comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy for cT1 posterior tumors. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 29(1):29–34. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2018.0313
Mittakanti HR, Heulitt G, Li HF, Porter JR (2020) Transperitoneal vs. retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy: a matched-paired analysis. World J Urol 38(5):1093–1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02903-7
Xia L et al (2016) Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 30:109–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.04.023
Pavan N et al (2018) Retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy: systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative outcomes. J Endourol 32(7):591–596. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0211
Casale P et al (2019) Evolution of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: techniques and outcomes from the transatlantic robotic nephron-sparing surgery study group. Eur Urol 76(2):222–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.038
Peyton CC et al (2020) Urinary leak following partial nephrectomy: a contemporary review of 975 cases. Can J Urol 27(1):10118–10124
McLean A et al (2020) Trans-peritoneal vs. retroperitoneal robotic assisted partial nephrectomy in posterior renal tumours: need for a risk-stratified patient individualised approach. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg 14(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00973-8
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
DS Wrote manuscript DS/SS/HNR/JO/MK - data collection/review MM, NB, AE, MH Concept, Design, Surgery, Review All authors reviewed manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Sri, D., Malki, M., Sarkar, S. et al. Long term experience of robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy as the default approach in the management of renal masses: should the paradigm shift?. J Robotic Surg 17, 2001–2008 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01582-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01582-2