Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy vs. laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy A single-site, two-surgeon, retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION

In 2019, our center attempted to transition all partial nephrectomies (PNs) to robotic-assisted laparoscopic PN (RALPN). The purpose of this study was to compare RALPN outcomes to laparoscopic PN (LPN) and open PN (OPN) at our institution, as there is limited literature from Canadian centers.

METHODS

In this single-center, two-surgeon, retrospective cohort study, we compared RALPN outcomes during the early phase of our robotics program to OPN and LPN performed just before the introduction of RALPN.

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients underwent OPN, 83 LPN, and 82 RALPN during the study period. Median RALPN REN AL score was 7 vs. 6 for LPN (p<0.05) and 8 for OPN (p=0.10). Median RALPN length of stay (LOS) was two days vs. three and four days for LPN and OPN (p<0.05), respectively. OPN median procedure time was 104 minutes vs. 94 and 82 minutes for LPN and RALPN (p<0.05), respectively. Median OPN operating room (OR) time was 160 minutes vs. 150 and 146 minutes for LPN and RALPN (p<0.05), respectively. There were no significant differences in intraoperative (p=0.92) or postoperative complication rates (p=0.47). RALPN warm ischemia time (WIT) was 17 minutes vs. 14.5 and 15 minutes for OPN and LPN (p<0.05), respectively. Median RALPN estimated blood loss (EBL) was 165 ml vs. 250 ml for OPN (p<0.05) and 125 ml for LPN (p=0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

Although patients who underwent RALPN had longer WIT, they had similar rates of complications, required less total OR time, and had shorter procedure times and LOS compared with OPN and LPN despite similar REN AL scores compared to OPN and greater scores than LPN.