Indian Journal of Urology Users online:3880  
IJU
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 36  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 16-20

Robotic partial nephrectomy: The current status


Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, NY, USA

Correspondence Address:
Ketan K Badani
Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, NY
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/iju.IJU_174_19

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Since its introduction, robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) has become increasingly popular, in part as a result of several advances in technique. The purpose of this paper is to review these techniques as well as the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes after RPN and compare these outcomes to those after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN). Methods: A literature review was performed to identify papers and meta-analyses that compared outcomes after RPN to OPN or LPN. All meta-analyses were included in this review. Results: Technical advances that have contributed to improved outcomes after RPN include the first-assistant sparing technique, the sliding clip technique, early unclamping, and selective arterial clamping. All five meta-analyses that compared LPN to RPN found that RPN was associated with a shorter warm ischemia time (WIT), but that there were no differences in estimated blood loss (EBL) or operative times. Those meta-analyses that compared intraoperative and postoperative complications, conversion to open or radical nephrectomy, length of stay (LOS), and postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) either found no difference or favored RPN. Four meta-analyses compared RPN to OPN. All four found that EBL, LOS, and postoperative complications favor RPN. There were no significant differences in intraoperative complications, conversion to radical nephrectomy, or positive surgical margin rates. One meta-analysis found that eGFR was better after RPN. Operative time and WIT generally favored OPN. Conclusions: Several techniques have been described to improve outcomes after RPN. We believe that the literature shows that RPN is as good if not better than both LPN and OPN and has become the preferred surgical approach.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed150    
    Printed1    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded28    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 

HEALTHWARE INDIA