Outcomes of open versus robotic partial nephrectomy: a 20-year single institution experience

Robotic assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) has emerged in urologic practice for the management of appropriately sized renal masses. We provide a 20-year comparison of the outcomes of open partial nephrectomy (OPN) versus RPN for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at our institution. An IRB-approved retrospe...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of robotic surgery 2024-08, Vol.18 (1), p.315, Article 315
Hauptverfasser: Love, Harrison, Yong, Courtney, Slaven, James E., Mahenthiran, Ashorne K., Roper, Chinade, Black, Morgan, Zhang, William, Patrick, Elise, DeMichael, Kelly, Wesson, Troy, O’Brien, Sean, Farrell, Rowan, Gardner, Thomas, Masterson, Timothy A., Boris, Ronald S., Sundaram, Chandru P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Robotic assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) has emerged in urologic practice for the management of appropriately sized renal masses. We provide a 20-year comparison of the outcomes of open partial nephrectomy (OPN) versus RPN for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at our institution. An IRB-approved retrospective review was conducted of RCC patients at a single institution from 2000 to 2022 who underwent RPN or OPN. In addition to demographics, procedural details including ischemia and operative time were collected. Oncologic outcomes were evaluated through Kaplan–Meier statistical analysis to determine recurrence-free survival (RFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) analysis. 849 patients underwent RPN while 385 underwent OPN. 61% were male with average age of 58.8 ± 12.8 years. Operative time was shorter in the open group (184 vs 200 min, p = 0.002), as was ischemia time (16 vs 19 min, p = 0.047). However, after 2012, RPN became more common than OPN with improving ischemia time. RPN patients had significantly improved RFS (HR 0.45, p = 0.0004) and OS (HR 0.51, p = 0.0016) when controlled for T-stage and margin status. More > pT1 masses were managed with OPN than RPN (11.2 vs 5.4%, p 
ISSN:1863-2491
1863-2483
1863-2491
DOI:10.1007/s11701-024-02027-0