Robotic partial nephrectomy with superselective versus main artery clamping: A retrospective comparison

Mihir M. Desai, Andre Luis De Castro Abreu, Scott Leslie, Jei Cai, Eric Yi Hsiu Huang, Pierre Marie Lewandowski, Dennis Lee, Arjuna Dharmaraja, Andre K. Berger, Alvin Goh, Osamu Ukimura, Monish Aron, Inderbir S. Gill

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

87 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background Concerns have been raised regarding partial nephrectomy (PN) techniques that do not occlude the main renal artery. Objective Compare the perioperative outcomes of superselective versus main renal artery control during robotic PN. Design, setting, and participants A retrospective analysis of 121 consecutive patients undergoing robotic PN using superselective control (group 1, n = 58) or main artery clamping (group 2, n = 63). Intervention Group 1 underwent tumor-specific devascularization, maintaining ongoing arterial perfusion to the renal remnant at all times. Group 2 underwent main renal artery clamping, creating global renal ischemia. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Perioperative and functional data were evaluated. The Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used. Results and limitations All robotic procedures were successful, all surgical margins were negative, and no kidneys were lost. Compared with group 2 tumors, group 1 tumors were larger (3.4 vs 2.6 cm, p = 0.004), more commonly hilar (24% vs 6%, p = 0.009), and more complex (PADUA 10 vs 8, p = 0.009). Group 1 patients had longer median operative time (p < 0.001) and transfusion rates (24% vs 6%, p < 0.01) but similar estimated blood loss (200 vs 150 ml), perioperative complications (15% vs 13%), and hospital stay. Group 1 patients had less decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate at discharge (0% vs 11%, p = 0.01) and at last follow-up (11% vs 17%, p = 0.03). On computed tomography volumetrics, group 1 patients trended toward greater parenchymal preservation (95% vs 90%, p = 0.07) despite larger tumor size and volume (19 vs 8 ml, p = 0.002). Main limitations are the retrospective study design, small cohort, and short follow-up. Conclusions Robotic PN with superselective vascular control enables tumor excision without any global renal ischemia. Blood loss, complications, and positive margin rates were low and similar to main artery clamping. In this initial developmental phase, limitations included more perioperative transfusions and longer operative time. The advantage of superselective clamping for better renal function preservation requires validation by prospective randomized studies. Patient summary Preserving global blood flow to the kidney during robotic partial nephrectomy (PN) does not lead to a higher complication rate and may lead to better postoperative renal function compared with clamped PN techniques.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)713-719
Number of pages7
JournalEuropean Urology
Volume66
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2014

Keywords

  • Nephron-sparing surgery
  • Partial nephrectomy
  • Robotic
  • Superselective clamping
  • Warm ischemia time
  • Zero-ischemia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Robotic partial nephrectomy with superselective versus main artery clamping: A retrospective comparison'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this