A novel trifecta to simplify the assessment of perioperative outcomes after robot assisted partial nephrectomy for cT1 renal masses: Results of a multicenter series

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. e430-e431
Author(s):  
U. Anceschi ◽  
R. Bertolo ◽  
A. Brassetti ◽  
G. Tuderti ◽  
S. Guaglianone ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 201 (Supplement 4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Umberto Anceschi* ◽  
Gabriele Tuderti ◽  
Maria Consiglia Ferriero ◽  
Aldo Brassetti ◽  
Salvatore Guaglianone ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 402-402
Author(s):  
R. L. O'Malley ◽  
T. Kowalik ◽  
M. H. Hayn ◽  
T. B. Collins ◽  
H. L. Kim ◽  
...  

402 Background: Although nephron-sparing surgery is the standard of care for the treatment of small renal masses, partial nephrectomy (PN) remains under-utilized. A potential reason for the discrepancy is the desire for minimally invasive surgical approaches but limitation of the advanced laparoscopic techniques needed to perform PN. Robot-assisted surgery has eased the transition to minimally invasive prostate surgery and may also do so for PN, although some believe costs may be prohibitive. The purpose of this investigation was to quantify the cost of robot-assisted PN (RAPN) compared to laparoscopic PN (LPN). Methods: An institutional renal tumor database was used to identify consecutive patients with normal renal function who underwent RAPN for a localized renal mass by a single surgeon who had performed < 25 previously. The 35 RAPN patients were compared to the last 35 similar patients who underwent LPN by a surgeon who had performed > 150 previous LPNs. Surgical outcomes were compared. Because room time, length of stay and Cxs were similar, cost was compared based only on the total operating room charges (ORC). Total ORC included surgeon and anesthesia fees, as well as labor and supply costs. The depreciation of the robot was included in the ORC as a higher per unit time charge than for LPN. Data on charges were available for the first 29 RAPN patients which were then compared to the last 29 LPN patients. Results: Dates of operation ranged from October 2008 to July 2009 for LPN and January 2010 to August 2010 for RAPN. Patient and tumor characteristics were similar between groups, except tumor size, which was larger in the RAPN group (3.6 ± 1.8 cm vs. 2.7 ± 0.9 cm, p = 0.007). Cxs, surgical and oncologic outcomes were similar. Mean ORC (IQR) for the LPN group was $28,606 (4,796) and for the RAPN group was $30,874 (20,389) representing a difference of $2,269. If you subtract an additional $858 for the average yearly inflation rate (3%), the difference is $1,411. Conclusions: RAPN is a safe option with perioperative outcomes similar to those of LPN performed by an experienced surgeon. A cost difference of $2,269 per procedure as estimated using ORC may decrease as the experience of the operating room staff and surgeon increase. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


2009 ◽  
Vol 181 (4S) ◽  
pp. 439-439
Author(s):  
Miguel A Mercado ◽  
Alana M Murphy ◽  
Gregory W Hruby ◽  
Jaime Landman ◽  
Mitchell C Benson ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (11) ◽  
pp. 1448-1453 ◽  
Author(s):  
William T. Berg ◽  
Chad R. Rich ◽  
Gina M. Badalato ◽  
Christopher M. Deibert ◽  
Chris O. Wambi ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 90 (3) ◽  
pp. 195-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giacomo Di Cosmo ◽  
Enrica Verzotti ◽  
Tommaso Silvestri ◽  
Andrea Lissiani ◽  
Roberto Knez ◽  
...  

Introduction: Nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) is of one of the most studied fields in urology due to the balancing between renal function preservation and oncological safety of the procedure. Aim of this short review is to report the state of the art of intra-operative ultrasound as an operative tool to improve localization of small renal masses partially or completely endophytic during robotassisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). Material and methods: We performed a literature review by electronic database on Pubmed about the use of intra-operative US in RAPN to evaluate the usefulness and the feasibility of this procedure. Results: Several studies analyzed the use of different US probes during RAPN. Among them some focused on using contrastenhanced ultra sonography (CEUS) for improving the dynamic evaluation of microvascular structure allowing the reduction of ischemia time (IT). We reported that nowaday the use of intraoperative US during RAPN could be helpful to improve the preservation of renal tissue without compromising oncological safety. Moreover, during RAPN there is no need for assistant to hand the US probe increasing surgeon autonomy. Conclusions: The use of a robotic ultrasound probe during partial nephrectomy allows the surgeon to optimize tumor identification with maximal autonomy, and to benefit from the precision and articulation of the robotic instrument during this key step of the partial nephrectomy procedure. Moreover US could be useful to reduce ischemia time (IT). The advantages of nephron-sparing surgery over radical nephrectomy is well established with a pool of data providing strong evidence of oncological and survival equivalency. With the progressive growth of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) techniques, the use of several tools has been progressively developed to help the surgeon in the identification of masses and its vascular net. In this short review we tried to analyze the current use of intra-operative ultrasound as an operative tool to improve localization of small renal masses partially or completely endophytic during RAPN.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document