Trifecta Outcomes in Renal Hilar Tumors: A Comparison Between Robotic and Open Partial Nephrectomy.

OBJECTIVES

To report a comparative analysis of outcomes in patients who underwent excisions of renal hilar tumors using both open and robotic approaches.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed robotic and open patients who underwent partial nephrectomy of renal hilar tumors between 2011 and 2016. "Trifecta" was defined as negative surgical margins, no complications, and a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) preservation of ≥90% at last follow-up. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied to equilibrate treatment groups, minimize selection bias, and optimize inference on the basis of each patient's clinicodemographic characteristics.

RESULTS

One hundred robotic and 64 open patients had sufficient data for IPTW. After weighting, there were no statistical differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups (p < 0.05). On adjusted analyses, robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) achieved equivalent rates of trifecta to open surgery (21.1% vs 13.9%, respectively, p = 0.387). There were no differences between robotic and open cohorts for negative margin rates (72.8% vs 90.4%, p = 0.124), absence of complications (68.6% vs 75.2%, p = 0.587), or GFR ≥90% (39.4% vs 21.6%, p = 0.111). The robotic cohort had a shorter mean length of stay (3.8 vs 5.0 days, p = 0.012), and no difference in estimated blood loss (253.3 vs 357.1, p = 0.091) or operating time (199.8 vs 200.4, p = 0.961).

CONCLUSIONS

In our analysis both open and RPN for hilar tumors were equally likely to achieve a low "trifecta" outcome with a shorter mean length of stay in the robotic cohort.