You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Download PDF
  • Review
  • Open Access

19 October 2022

Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy Mid-Term Oncologic Outcomes: A Systematic Review

,
,
and
1
Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria
2
Institution Organizing University Doctoral Studies IOSUD, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology, 540142 Târgu Mureș, Romania
3
Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow 119992, Russia
4
Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY 14853, USA
J. Clin. Med.2022, 11(20), 6165;https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11206165
This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Clinical Management of Patients Undergoing Nephrectomy
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Background: Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is used more and more in present days as a therapy option for surgical treatment of cT1 renal masses. Current guidelines equally recommend open (OPN), laparoscopic (LPN), or robotic partial nephrectomy (PN). The aim of this review was to analyze the most representative RAPN series in terms of reported oncological outcomes. (2) Methods: A systematic search of Webofscience, PUBMED, Clinicaltrials.gov was performed on 1 August 2022. Studies were considered eligible if they: included patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) stage T1, were prospective, used randomized clinical trials (RCT) or retrospective studies, had patients undergo RAPN with a minimum follow-up of 48 months. (3) Results: Reported positive surgical margin rates were from 0 to 10.5%. Local recurrence occurred in up to 3.6% of patients. Distant metastases were reported in up to 6.4% of patients. 5-year cancer free survival (CFS) estimates rates ranged from 86.4% to 98.4%. 5-year cancer specific survival (CSS) estimates rates ranged from 90.1% to 100%, and 5-year overall survival (OS) estimates rated ranged from 82.6% to 97.9%. (4) Conclusions: Data coming from retrospective and prospective series shows very good oncologic outcomes after RAPN. Up to now, 10-year survival outcomes were not reported. Taken together, RAPN deliver similar oncologic performance to OPN and LPN.

1. Introduction

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) represents a serious condition and its incidence in the US alone is estimated to 79,000 new cases in 2022 [1] and worldwide up to half a million [2]. For small renal masses (cT1) and some larger lesions (cT2), partial nephrectomy (PN) has established itself as the preferred surgical diagnostic and therapeutic strategy [3,4,5].
With the advent of robotic surgery, robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) has become an increasingly used surgical option for the surgical management of cT1 and some cT2 renal masses [6]; it is standardized [7] and can be performed both transperitoneal or retroperitoneal [8,9].
Current guidelines [10] equally recommend open (OPN), laparoscopic (LPN), or robotic partial nephrectomy (PN), as a head-to-head comparison in randomized trials have not been performed until now, and are unlikely to be ever performed. A recent meta-analysis, including seven studies with 2646 patients, that compared RAPN to OPN, showed that RAPN resulted in less estimated blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, and fewer complications; but it was lacking data on oncologic outcomes [11]. While the most recent systematic review showed slightly higher cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates for RAPN, with a 5-year CSS of 90.1–97.9% for RAPN versus 85.9–86.9% for LPN and 88.5–96.3% for OPN, when only studies with matched-pair analysis were included [12].
Considering the continuous evolution in current evidence, we aimed to analyze the most representative RAPN series in terms of reported oncological outcomes.

2. Materials and Methods

A systematic search of Webofscience, PUBMED, Clinicaltrials.gov was performed on 1 August 2022, using any combination of the terms: robot-assisted (EXP) OR partial nephrectomy (EXP) OR robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (EXP) AND renal carcinoma (EXP) OR kidney cancer (EXP). All original articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were included. Supplementary search of gray literature was performed in Google scholar.

2.1. Protocol

The protocol of this systematic review followed the Cochrane handbook [13] and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) criteria (www.prisma-statement.org, accessed on 1 August 2022) [14].

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were considered eligible if they included patients with RCC, stage T1, had a prospective, randomized clinical trial (RCT) or retrospective design, patients underwent RAPN, had a mean follow-up of 48 months, and reported oncologic outcomes for five years.
Primary outcome was cancer-free survival (CFS). Secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and CSS.
For each selected study, the following items were recorded: first author’s name, year of publication, design, number of patients, age, tumor size on imaging, rate of positive surgical margins (PSM), local recurrence, distant metastasis, CFS, OS, CSS, and follow-up. Two investigators independently conducted literature searches and extracted data from included full-text articles; disagreements were resolved by consensus.

3. Results

After fulfilling all the inclusion criteria, 13 studies were identified [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27], and another 17 studies were excluded mainly because follow-up was too short [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. All of the studies had an retrospective design except the ones from Furukawa et al. [16] and Beauval et al. [24]. The studies included in total 2703 patients with T1 RCC. The mean age of the patients ranged from 49.8 to 61 years. Mean tumor size ranged from 2.6 to 4.2 cm. Follow-ups ranged from 49 to 88, and only 4 studies had a shorter than 60 month follow-up [17,21,22,25]. Reported positive surgical margin rates ranged from 0 to 10.5%. Local recurrence was reported in up to 3.6% of patients [20]. Distant metastases were reported in up to 6.4% of patients [24]. 5-year CFS estimates rates ranged from 86.4% to 98.4%. 5-year CSS estimates rates ranged from 90.1% to 100%, and 5-year OS estimates rated ranged from 82.6% to 97.9% (Table 1).
Table 1. Robot assisted partial nephrectomy series with 5 year reported oncologic outcomes.

4. Discussion

We found that RAPN resulted in very good oncological outcomes. Despite these promising results, they came quite late, as RAPN was first described almost two decades ago [45]; to date, long-term (10 years) oncologic outcomes are not reported yet. Seventeen studies were excluded, as we included in this review only the most relevant studies with a minimum of four years of follow-up and reported oncologic outcomes at five years (CFS, OS and/or CSS). Even so many studies are retrospective, and some may include also patients treated while on learning curve. That could explain the heterogeneous results regarding the rate of PSM, with rates ranging from 0 to 10.5%; this certainly negatively impacts oncologic outcomes. Indeed, a recent meta-analysis including 44 studies assessing PN patients demonstrated that PSM increased the risk of local recurrence (RR 4.14 95% CI 2.75–6.24), all site recurrence (RR 4.8 95% CI 3.38–6.62), mortality (RR 1.83 95% CI 1.08–3.1), and metastasis (RR 8.1 95% CI 3.88–16.92) [46]. However, research has shown that recurrence within 5 years of nephrectomy is a strong surrogate for long-term outcomes, including OS and CSS [47,48].
The local recurrence rate was, in agreement with the literature, up to 3.6% [49]. Further, the distant metastasis rate was acceptably low, with a maximum reported rate of 6.4% in a prospective multicenter study [24]; this rate is also in line with those reported by historic open and laparoscopic PN series [50].
Oncologic endpoints, such as CFS, CSS, or OS, were very good, but with a large range, such as approximately 12% for CFS, 10% for CSS, and 15% for OS this may be due to heterogeneity in follow-up, characteristics of included patients, surgeon experience, and natural history of RCC. Nevertheless, these mid-term outcomes are similar to those reported in open or laparoscopic series [51]. A head-to-head prospective comparison had, until now, not been performed, and is unlikely to ever be performed. Recently Audigé et al. showed, in a retrospective analysis, that CFS and OS did not differ at seven years of follow-up; however a greater amount of local recurrences were reported in the OPN cohort [15]. Other comparison studies with minimum four years of follow-up reported slightly better CFS, CSS or OS in favor of RAPN over OPN [22,23,25]; however, lack of standardized reporting of results, heterogeneity of the studies, and patient selection may have influenced the results.

5. Conclusions

Data coming from retrospective and prospective series show very good oncologic outcomes after RAPN. While 10-year survival outcomes are not reported yet, oncologically, it is highly likely that RAPN performs equally to LPN and OPN when performed by experienced surgeons. Short- and long-term differences where RAPN is likely to outperform LPN and/or OPN are the surgical and perioperative quality indicators, and may be health related quality of life domains.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.D.V., M.R., H.F. and S.F.S.; methodology, M.D.V., M.R., H.F. and S.F.S.; resources, M.D.V., M.R., H.F. and S.F.S.; data curation, M.D.V., M.R., H.F. and S.F.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.D.V., M.R., H.F. and S.F.S.; writing—review and editing, M.D.V., M.R., H.F. and S.F.S.; visualization, M.D.V., M.R., H.F. and S.F.S.; supervision, S.F.S.; project administration, S.F.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Siegel, R.L.; Miller, K.D.; Fuchs, H.E.; Jemal, A. Cancer Statistics, 2022. CA. Cancer J. Clin. 2022, 72, 7–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA. Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Zini, L.; Perrotte, P.; Capitanio, U.; Jeldres, C.; Shariat, S.F.; Antebi, E.; Saad, F.; Patard, J.-J.; Montorsi, F.; Karakiewicz, P.I. Radical versus Partial Nephrectomy: Effect on Overall and Noncancer Mortality. Cancer 2009, 115, 1465–1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Marchioni, M.; Preisser, F.; Bandini, M.; Nazzani, S.; Tian, Z.; Kapoor, A.; Cindolo, L.; Abdollah, F.; Tilki, D.; Briganti, A.; et al. Comparison of Partial Versus Radical Nephrectomy Effect on Other-Cause Mortality, Cancer-Specific Mortality, and 30-Day Mortality in Patients Older Than 75 Years. Eur. Urol. Focus 2019, 5, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Sun, M.; Abdollah, F.; Shariat, S.F.; Schmitges, J.; Trinh, Q.-D.; Tian, Z.; Jeldres, C.; Abdo, A.; Bianchi, M.; Briganti, A.; et al. Propensity-Score Matched Comparison of Complications, Blood Transfusions, Length of Stay, and in-Hospital Mortality between Open and Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: A National Series. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. (EJSO) 2012, 38, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Novara, G.; La Falce, S.; Kungulli, A.; Gandaglia, G.; Ficarra, V.; Mottrie, A. Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy. Int. J. Surg. Lond. Engl. 2016, 36, 554–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ghodoussipour, S.; Reddy, S.S.; Ma, R.; Huang, D.; Nguyen, J.; Hung, A.J. An Objective Assessment of Performance during Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: Validation and Correlation of Automated Performance Metrics with Intraoperative Outcomes. J. Urol. 2021, 205, 1294–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Socarrás, M.R.; Elbers, J.R.; Rivas, J.G.; Autran, A.M.; Esperto, F.; Tortolero, L.; Carrion, D.M.; Sancha, F.G. Retroperitoneal Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy (RRAPN): Surgical Technique and Review. Curr. Urol. Rep. 2021, 22, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Carbonara, U.; Crocerossa, F.; Campi, R.; Veccia, A.; Cacciamani, G.E.; Amparore, D.; Checcucci, E.; Loizzo, D.; Pecoraro, A.; Marchioni, M.; et al. Retroperitoneal Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Comparative Outcomes. Eur. Urol. Open Sci. 2022, 40, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ljungberg, B.; Albiges, L.; Abu-Ghanem, Y.; Bedke, J.; Capitanio, U.; Dabestani, S.; Fernández-Pello, S.; Giles, R.H.; Hofmann, F.; Hora, M.; et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma: The 2022 Update. Eur. Urol. 2022, 82, 399–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ni, Y.; Yang, X. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparison of Outcomes of Robot-Assisted versus Open Partial Nephrectomy in Clinical T1 Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients. Urol. Int. 2022, 106, 757–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Tang, A.B.; Lamaina, M.; Childers, C.P.; Mak, S.S.; Ruan, Q.; Begashaw, M.M.; Bergman, J.; Booth, M.S.; Shekelle, P.G.; Wilson, M.; et al. Perioperative and Long-Term Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review. Am. Surg. 2021, 87, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Available online: http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/ (accessed on 19 April 2018).
  14. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Int. J. Surg. Lond. Engl. 2010, 8, 336–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Audigé, V.; Baghli, A.; Hubert, J.; Mazeaud, C.; Larré, S.; Branchu, B. Clinical and Oncological Outcomes of Open Partial Nephrectomy versus Robot Assisted Partial Nephrectomy over 15 Years. J. Robot. Surg. 2022, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Furukawa, J.; Hinata, N.; Teisima, J.; Takenaka, A.; Shiroki, R.; Kobayashi, Y.; Kanayama, H.-O.; Hattori, K.; Horie, S.; Tozawa, K.; et al. Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy with Minimum Follow-up of 5 Years: A Multi-Center Prospective Study in Japan. Int. J. Urol. Off. J. Jpn. Urol. Assoc. 2022, 29, 1038–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Koukourikis, P.; Alqahtani, A.A.; Almujalhem, A.; Lee, J.; Han, W.K.; Rha, K.H. Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy for High-Complexity Tumors (PADUA Score ≥10): Perioperative, Long-Term Functional and Oncologic Outcomes. Int. J. Urol. Off. J. Jpn. Urol. Assoc. 2021, 28, 554–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Carbonara, U.; Simone, G.; Capitanio, U.; Minervini, A.; Fiori, C.; Larcher, A.; Checcucci, E.; Amparore, D.; Crocerossa, F.; Veccia, A.; et al. Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: 7-Year Outcomes. Minerva Urol. Nephrol. 2021, 73, 540–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kızılay, F.; Turna, B.; Apaydın, E.; Semerci, B. Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy. Kaohsiung J. Med. Sci. 2019, 35, 238–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bertolo, R.; Garisto, J.; Dagenais, J.; Sagalovich, D.; Stein, R.; Fareed, K.; Gao, T.; Armanyous, S.; Fergany, A.; Lioudis, M.; et al. Transperitoneal Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy with Minimum Follow-up of 5 Years: Oncological and Functional Outcomes from a Single Institution. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 2019, 2, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Vartolomei, M.D.; Matei, D.V.; Renne, G.; Tringali, V.M.; Crisan, N.; Musi, G.; Mistretta, F.A.; Russo, A.; Cozzi, G.; Cordima, G.; et al. Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: 5-Yr Oncological Outcomes at a Single European Tertiary Cancer Center. Eur. Urol. Focus 2019, 5, 636–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Abdel Raheem, A.; Chang, K.D.; Alenzi, M.J.; Lum, T.G.; Ham, W.S.; Han, W.K.; Chung, B.H.; Choi, Y.D.; Rha, K.H. Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy for Totally Endophytic Renal Tumors: Step by Step Standardized Surgical Technique and Long-Term Outcomes with a Median 59-Month Follow-Up. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. 2019, 29, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Chang, K.D.; Abdel Raheem, A.; Kim, K.H.; Oh, C.K.; Park, S.Y.; Kim, Y.S.; Ham, W.S.; Han, W.K.; Choi, Y.D.; Chung, B.H.; et al. Functional and Oncological Outcomes of Open, Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Multicentre Comparative Matched-Pair Analyses with a Median of 5 Years’ Follow-Up. BJU Int. 2018, 122, 618–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Beauval, J.-B.; Peyronnet, B.; Benoit, T.; Cabarrou, B.; Seisen, T.; Roumiguié, M.; Pradere, B.; Khene, Z.-E.; Manach, Q.; Verhoest, G.; et al. Long-Term Oncological Outcomes after Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Prospective Multicentre Study. World J. Urol. 2018, 36, 897–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Wang, Y.; Shao, J.; Ma, X.; Du, Q.; Gong, H.; Zhang, X. Robotic and Open Partial Nephrectomy for Complex Renal Tumors: A Matched-Pair Comparison with a Long-Term Follow-Up. World J. Urol. 2016, 35, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Andrade, H.S.; Zargar, H.; Caputo, P.A.; Akca, O.; Kara, O.; Ramirez, D.; Haber, G.-P.; Stein, R.J.; Kaouk, J.H. Five-Year Oncologic Outcomes After Transperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for Renal Cell Carcinoma. Eur. Urol. 2016, 69, 1149–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Khalifeh, A.; Kaouk, J.H.; Bhayani, S.; Rogers, C.; Stifelman, M.; Tanagho, Y.S.; Kumar, R.; Gorin, M.A.; Sivarajan, G.; Samarasekera, D.; et al. Positive Surgical Margins in Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Multi-Institutional Analysis of Oncologic Outcomes (Leave No Tumor Behind). J. Urol. 2013, 190, 1674–1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Abdel Raheem, A.; Alatawi, A.; Kim, D.K.; Sheikh, A.; Alabdulaali, I.; Han, W.K.; Choi, Y.D.; Rha, K.H. Outcomes of High-Complexity Renal Tumours with a Preoperative Aspects and Dimensions Used for an Anatomical (PADUA) Score of ≥10 after Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy with a Median 46.5-Month Follow-up: A Tertiary Centre Experience. BJU Int. 2016, 118, 770–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fraisse, G.; Colleter, L.; Peyronnet, B.; Khene, Z.-E.; Mandoorah, Q.; Soorojebally, Y.; Bourgi, A.; De La Taille, A.; Roupret, M.; De Kerviler, E.; et al. Peri-Operative and Local Control Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy vs Percutaneous Cryoablation for Renal Masses: Comparison after Matching on Radiological Stage and Renal Score. BJU Int. 2019, 123, 632–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Buffi, N.M.; Saita, A.; Lughezzani, G.; Porter, J.; Dell’Oglio, P.; Amparore, D.; Fiori, C.; Denaeyer, G.; Porpiglia, F.; Mottrie, A.; et al. Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy for Complex (PADUA Score ≥10) Tumors: Techniques and Results from a Multicenter Experience at Four High-Volume Centers. Eur. Urol. 2020, 77, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Garisto, J.; Bertolo, R.; Dagenais, J.; Sagalovich, D.; Fareed, K.; Fergany, A.; Stein, R.; Kaouk, J. Robotic versus Open Partial Nephrectomy for Highly Complex Renal Masses: Comparison of Perioperative, Functional, and Oncological Outcomes. Urol. Oncol. 2018, 36, 471.e1–471.e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rembeyo, G.; Correas, J.-M.; Jantzen, R.; Audenet, F.; Dariane, C.; Delavaud, C.; Mejean, A.; Timsit, M.-O. Percutaneous Ablation Versus Robotic Partial Nephrectomy in the Treatment of CT1b Renal Tumors: Oncologic and Functional Outcomes of a Propensity Score-Weighted Analysis. Clin. Genitourin. Cancer 2020, 18, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Carbonara, U.; Simone, G.; Minervini, A.; Sundaram, C.P.; Larcher, A.; Lee, J.; Checcucci, E.; Fiori, C.; Patel, D.; Meagher, M.; et al. Robotic-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy for “Very Small” (<2 cm) Renal Mass: Results of a Multicenter Contemporary Cohort. Eur. Urol. Focus 2021, 7, 1115–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Gu, L.; Ma, X.; Wang, B.; Xie, Y.; Li, X.; Gao, Y.; Lyu, X.; Huang, Q.; Fan, Y.; Yao, Y.; et al. Laparoscopic vs Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy for Renal Tumours of >4 Cm: A Propensity Score-Based Analysis. BJU Int. 2018, 122, 449–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Deng, W.; Li, J.; Liu, X.; Chen, L.; Liu, W.; Zhou, X.; Zhu, J.; Fu, B.; Wang, G. Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for Anatomically Complex T1b Renal Tumors with a RENAL Nephrometry Score ≥7: A Propensity Score-Based Analysis. Cancer Med. 2020, 9, 586–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Liu, H.-Y.; Kang, C.H.; Wang, H.-J.; Chen, C.H.; Luo, H.L.; Chen, Y.-T.; Cheng, Y.-T.; Chiang, P.-H. Comparison of Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy with Laparoscopic Cryoablation in the Treatment of Localised Renal Tumours: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rothberg, M.B.; Paulucci, D.J.; Okhawere, K.E.; Reynolds, C.R.; Badani, K.K.; Abaza, R.; Eun, D.; Bhandari, A.; Porter, J.; Hemal, A.K. A Multi-Institutional Analysis of the Effect of Positive Surgical Margins Following Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy on Oncologic Outcomes. J. Endourol. 2020, 34, 304–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chen, L.; Deng, W.; Luo, Y.; Liu, W.; Li, Y.; Liu, X.; Wang, G.; Fu, B. Comparison of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for Renal Hilar Tumors: Results from a Tertiary Referral Center. J. Endourol. 2020, 36, 941–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zennami, K.; Takahara, K.; Matsukiyo, R.; Nukaya, T.; Takenaka, M.; Fukaya, K.; Ichino, M.; Fukami, N.; Sasaki, H.; Kusaka, M.; et al. Long-Term Functional and Oncologic Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy for Cystic Renal Tumors: A Single-Center Retrospective Study. J. Endourol. 2021, 35, 1006–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Furukawa, J.; Kanayama, H.; Azuma, H.; Inoue, K.; Kobayashi, Y.; Kashiwagi, A.; Segawa, T.; Takahashi, Y.; Horie, S.; Ogawa, O.; et al. “Trifecta” Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Large Japanese Multicenter Study. Int. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 25, 347–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Uemura, T.; Kato, T.; Nagahara, A.; Kawashima, A.; Hatano, K.; Ujike, T.; Ono, Y.; Higashihara, H.; Fujita, K.; Fukuhara, S.; et al. Therapeutic and Clinical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy Versus Cryoablation for T1 Renal Cell Carcinoma. In Vivo 2021, 35, 1573–1579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Otaola-Arca, H.; Krebs, A.; Bermúdez, H.; Lyng, R.; Orvieto, M.; Bustamante, A.; Stein, C.; Labra, A.; Schultz, M.; Fernández, M.I. Long-Term Oncological and Functional Outcomes After Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy for Clinically Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2022, 29, 2484–2494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Lee, S.; Ryu, H.; Lee, J.W. Open Partial Nephrectomy vs. Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy for a Renal Tumor Larger than 4 Cm: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2021, 36, e135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Sri, D.; Thakkar, R.; Patel, H.R.H.; Lazarus, J.; Berger, F.; McArthur, R.; Lavigueur-Blouin, H.; Afshar, M.; Fraser-Taylor, C.; Le Roux, P.; et al. Robotic-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy (RAPN) and Standardization of Outcome Reporting: A Prospective, Observational Study on Reaching the “Trifecta and Pentafecta”. J. Robot. Surg. 2021, 15, 571–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Gettman, M.T.; Blute, M.L.; Chow, G.K.; Neururer, R.; Bartsch, G.; Peschel, R. Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: Technique and Initial Clinical Experience with DaVinci Robotic System. Urology 2004, 64, 914–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. García-Perdomo, H.A.; Ribal Caparrós, M.J.; Alcaraz Asensio, A.; Vilaseca Cabo, A. Effect of Positive Surgical Margins in Patients Who Undergo a Partial Nephrectomy Regarding Recurrence, Overall Survival, Recurrence/Progression-Free Survival, and Metastasis-Free Survival. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin. Genitourin. Cancer 2022, 20, 459–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rieken, M.; Kluth, L.A.; Fajkovic, H.; Capitanio, U.; Briganti, A.; Krabbe, L.-M.; Margulis, V.; Abufaraj, M.; Mari, A.; Foerster, B.; et al. Predictors of Cancer-Specific Survival After Disease Recurrence in Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma: The Effect of Time to Recurrence. Clin. Genitourin. Cancer 2018, 16, e903–e908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Brookman-May, S.D.; May, M.; Shariat, S.F.; Novara, G.; Zigeuner, R.; Cindolo, L.; De Cobelli, O.; De Nunzio, C.; Pahernik, S.; Wirth, M.P.; et al. Time to Recurrence Is a Significant Predictor of Cancer-Specific Survival after Recurrence in Patients with Recurrent Renal Cell Carcinoma--Results from a Comprehensive Multi-Centre Database (CORONA/SATURN-Project). BJU Int. 2013, 112, 909–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Minervini, A.; Campi, R.; Sessa, F.; Derweesh, I.; Kaouk, J.H.; Mari, A.; Rha, K.H.; Sessa, M.; Volpe, A.; Carini, M.; et al. Positive Surgical Margins and Local Recurrence after Simple Enucleation and Standard Partial Nephrectomy for Malignant Renal Tumors: Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence. Minerva Urol. E Nefrol. Ital. J. Urol. Nephrol. 2017, 69, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lane, B.R.; Campbell, S.C.; Gill, I.S. 10-Year Oncologic Outcomes after Laparoscopic and Open Partial Nephrectomy. J. Urol. 2013, 190, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Vartolomei, M.D.; Foerster, B.; Kimura, S.; Autorino, R.; Shariat, S.F.; Seitz, C. Oncologic Outcomes after Minimally Invasive Surgery for CT1 Renal Masses: A Comprehensive Review. Curr. Opin. Urol. 2018, 28, 132–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Efficacy of Neurostimulations for Upper Extremity Function Recovery after Stroke: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
Previous
Short-Term Effects of Dry Needling with a Standard Exercise Program on Pain and Quality of Life in Patients with Chronic Mechanical Neck Pain
Next