Open, laparoscopic, and robotic radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma

Comparing outcomes and the tetrafecta as a composite marker of surgery quality

Authors

  • Maxwell Sandberg Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center
  • Parth Udayan Thakker Indiana University School of Medicine
  • Rory Ritts Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center
  • Megan Escott Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center
  • Mary Namugosa Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center
  • Adam Cohen Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center
  • Stephen Tranchina Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center
  • Kimberly Waggener Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center
  • Madeline Snipes Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center
  • XiXi Yi Campbell University - School of Osteopathic Medicine
  • Justin Refugia Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center
  • Gregory Russell Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center
  • Timothy O'Rourke Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center
  • Ashok Kumar Hemal Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.9039

Keywords:

cost, laparoscopy, open, nephroureterectomy, robotic approach, upper tract urothelial carcinoma

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare surgical outcomes and costs between robotic radical nephroureterectomy (RNU), laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy (LNU), and open radical nephroureterectomy (ONU), and to assess the relevance of the tetrafecta as a composite outcome on survival parameters after nephroureterectomy (NU).

METHODS: Operative and oncologic followup data was retrospectively collected on patients who underwent NU from 2006-2022 at our institution. The tetrafecta was defined as a true bladder cuff, lymph node dissection, negative surgical margins, and no postoperative complications. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess the impact of surgical approach on survival outcomes.

RESULTS: A total of 248 patients were included in the analysis (145 RNU, 61 LNU, and 42 ONU). The complication rate differed by approach and was lowest in RNU (p<0.01). Cancer-specific survival (CSS) differed between ONU and RNU patients, with ONU patients 2.51 times as likely to die from their cancer. Retroperitoneal recurrence-free survival (RPFS) differed between ONU and RNU patients, with ONU patients 7.22 times more likely to experience a retroperitoneal recurrence (p=0.0013). Variable surgical costs were lower in LNU compared to ONU (p=0.028) and direct inpatient hospital costs were lowest with RNU (p<0.01). Eighty-one patients met criteria for the tetrafecta. RNU patients were more likely to achieve the tetrafecta compared to LNU (p<0.01) and ONU (p<0.01) patients. No differences in survival parameters existed between patients who did and did not achieve the tetrafecta.

CONCLUSIONS: Most oncologic outcomes after NU do not differ by approach on longterm followup; however, CSS and RPFS appear to differ between RNU and ONU. ONU has traditionally been considered the approach with the lowest cost; however, our analysis demonstrates both RNU and LNU require lower costs than ONU, depending on the cost parameter analyzed. Among all approaches, the tetrafecta is best achieved with RNU.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2025-03-17

How to Cite

Sandberg, M., Thakker, P. U., Ritts, R., Escott, M., Namugosa, M., Cohen, A., … Hemal, A. K. (2025). Open, laparoscopic, and robotic radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: Comparing outcomes and the tetrafecta as a composite marker of surgery quality. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 19(7), E129–28. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.9039

Issue

Vol. 19 No. 7 (2025): 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.