Comparison of robotic and open partial nephrectomy: Single-surgeon matched cohort study

Authors

  • Jong Jin Oh Department of Urology, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, Korea CHA Cancer Institute, CHA University, Seoul, Korea
  • Seoksoo Byun Department of Urology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
  • Sung Kyu Hong Department of Urology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
  • Chang Wook Jeong Department of Urology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
  • Sang Eun Lee Department of Urology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.1679

Keywords:

Kidney, da Vinci Robot, nephron-sparing surgery

Abstract

Introduction: We present comparative outcomes among matched patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) or open partial nephrectomy (OPN) by a single surgeon at a single institution.

Methods: We reviewed the medical records of 200 patients who underwent RPN (n = 100) or OPN (n = 100) between May 2003 and May 2013. The patients who underwent RPN were matched for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, as well as tumour size, side and location. Perioperative outcomes were compared.

Results: There was no significant difference between the 2 cohorts with respect to patient age, BMI, ASA score, preoperative glomerular filtration rate, tumour size and the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score. The mean operative time was longer in the RPN group, but there were no significant differences with respect to warm ischemic time and postoperative renal function. The length of hospitalization and use of postoperative analgesics (ketoprofen) were more favourable in the RPN cohort. There was no significant difference in the mean estimated blood loss, transfusion rate, or complications between the cohorts.

Conclusions: Considering the perioperative and postoperative parameters, RPN is a viable option as a nephron-sparing surgical procedure for small renal masses that yields outcomes comparable to those achieved with OPN. Despite matched cohort analysis among patients who underwent PN by a single surgeon, there may be inherent selection bias; therefore future prospective trials are needed.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2014-07-18

How to Cite

Oh, J. J., Byun, S., Hong, S. K., Jeong, C. W., & Lee, S. E. (2014). Comparison of robotic and open partial nephrectomy: Single-surgeon matched cohort study. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 8(7-8), e471–5. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.1679

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 7-8 (2014): CUAJ July

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.