Retroperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: Systematic Review and Cumulative Analysis of Comparative Outcomes.

OBJECTIVES To compare the outcomes of retroperitoneal vs transperitoneal approach for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic review of the literature was performed through January 2018 using PubMed, Scopus, and Ovid databases. Article selection proceeded according to the search strategy based on PRISMA criteria. Only studies comparing retroperitoneal to transperitoneal approach for RAPN were deemed eligible for inclusion. RESULTS Seven retrospective case-control studies were identified and included in the analysis, with a total number of 1379 patients (866 for transperitoneal group; 513 for retroperitoneal group). In the retroperitoneal group, tumors were slightly larger [weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.29 cm; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.04-0.54; p = 0.02], and more frequently located posterior/lateral (odds ratio: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.41-0.90; p = 0.01). In two of the studies only posterior tumors had been included. Both operating time (WMD 20.17 min; 95% CI 6.46-33.88; p = 0.004) and estimated blood loss (WMD 54.57 mL; 95% CI 6.73-102.4; p = 0.03) were significantly lower in the retroperitoneal group. In addition, length of stay was significantly shorter in the retroperitoneal group (WMD 0.46 days; CI 95% 0.15-0.76; p = 0.003). No differences were found regarding overall (p = 0.67) and major (p = 0.82) postoperative complications, warm ischemia time (p = 0.96), and positive surgical margins (p = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS Retroperitoneal RAPN can offer in select patients similar outcomes to those of the most common transperitoneal RAPN. Furthermore, it may be particularly advantageous for posterior upper pole and perihilar tumors and associated with reduction in operative time and hospital stay. Robotic surgeons should be ideally familiar with both approaches to adapt their surgical strategy to confront renal neoplasms from a position of technical advantage and ultimately optimize outcomes.

[1]  N. Azawi,et al.  Pushing the Envelope: Laparoscopic Nephrectomy as Outpatient Surgery , 2018, Current Urology Reports.

[2]  Jeffrey A. Cadeddu,et al.  Adult Urology Oncology : Adrenal / Renal / Upper Tract / Bladder lized Renal Cancer : AUA Guideline , 2017 .

[3]  I. Derweesh,et al.  Comparison of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy for Pentafecta perioperative and renal functional outcomes , 2017, World Journal of Urology.

[4]  R. Autorino,et al.  Partial Nephrectomy Versus Radical Nephrectomy for Clinical T1b and T2 Renal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies. , 2017, European urology.

[5]  J. Kaouk,et al.  Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for Posterior Tumors Through a Retroperitoneal Approach Offers Decreased Length of Stay Compared with the Transperitoneal Approach: A Propensity-Matched Analysis. , 2017, Journal of endourology.

[6]  Steven L. Chang,et al.  Outcomes of Robotic versus Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: an Updated Meta-Analysis of 4,919 Patients. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[7]  K. Bensalah,et al.  Impact of ischaemia time on renal function after partial nephrectomy: a systematic review , 2016, BJU international.

[8]  D. Parekh,et al.  Current Paradigm for Ischemia in Kidney Surgery. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[9]  X. Zhang,et al.  Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2016, International journal of surgery.

[10]  M. PotretzkeAaron,et al.  Retroperitoneal Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy for Posterior Renal Masses Is Associated with Earlier Hospital Discharge: A Single-Institution Retrospective Comparison. , 2015 .

[11]  J. Coleman,et al.  Comparison of perioperative outcomes of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal minimally invasive partial nephrectomy after adjusting for tumor complexity. , 2014, Urology.

[12]  Jim C Hu,et al.  Technique and outcomes of robot-assisted retroperitoneoscopic partial nephrectomy: a multicenter study. , 2014, European urology.

[13]  H. Sung,et al.  Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy: matched-pair comparisons by nephrometry scores , 2014, World Journal of Urology.

[14]  H. Miyake,et al.  Comparison of the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in an initial case series in Japan. , 2013, Journal of endourology.

[15]  Jihad H Kaouk,et al.  Positive surgical margins in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a multi-institutional analysis of oncologic outcomes (leave no tumor behind). , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[16]  A. Hughes-Hallett,et al.  Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a comparison of the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. , 2013, Journal of endourology.

[17]  P. Pierorazio,et al.  Trends in renal surgery: robotic technology is associated with increased use of partial nephrectomy. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[18]  J. Kaouk,et al.  Comparative outcomes and assessment of trifecta in 500 robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy cases: a single surgeon experience. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[19]  J. Kaouk,et al.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: step-by-step contemporary technique and surgical outcomes at a single high-volume institution. , 2012, European urology.

[20]  Lorenzo Marconi,et al.  EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2014 update. , 2010, European urology.

[21]  M. Sangalli,et al.  Impact of the learning curve on perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy for parenchymal renal tumours. , 2010, European urology.

[22]  Robert G Uzzo,et al.  The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. , 2009, The Journal of urology.

[23]  I. Hozo,et al.  Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample , 2005, BMC medical research methodology.

[24]  N. Demartines,et al.  Classification of Surgical Complications: A New Proposal With Evaluation in a Cohort of 6336 Patients and Results of a Survey , 2004, Annals of Surgery.

[25]  R. Sylvester,et al.  A prospective, randomised EORTC intergroup phase 3 study comparing the oncologic outcome of elective nephron-sparing surgery and radical nephrectomy for low-stage renal cell carcinoma. , 2011, European urology.