Zhang Yan, Li Fan, Guo Wenhao, Zhang Zongbiao, Li Heng, Guan Wei
Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 1095 Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan 430030, China.
J Clin Med. 2025 Apr 16;14(8):2739. doi: 10.3390/jcm14082739.
: The advent of robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) has marked a new era in minimally invasive surgery, establishing itself as a preferred method for managing renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, even within the same center, variations in the use of robotic arms during RAPN have been reported. In this study, we aim to explore differences in efficiency, safety, and hospital costs between three-arm and four-arm RAPN. : This retrospective study analyzed the clinical data of 91 patients who underwent RAPN in Tongji Hospital from January 2021 to December 2023. The patients were divided into two groups: 50 patients in the three-arm group (with the use of three robotic arms and two assistant ports) and 41 patients in the four-arm group (with the use of four robotic arms and one assistant port). Patients' demographics and tumor characteristics, operative outcomes, and hospital costs were recorded. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed on age, gender, body mass index, laterality, RENAL score, tumor stage, and pathological grade. We compared three-arm with four-arm RAPN groups based on operative outcomes, and hospital costs. : In total, 50 and 41 patients underwent three-arm and four-arm RAPN. All procedures were successfully executed without the need to convert to open surgery or radical nephrectomy. After matching, the four-arm configuration demonstrated a numerically longer total operative time compared with the three-arm approach (146.5 vs. 120.0 min, = 0.068). Hospital costs in the four-arm group were significantly higher than those in the three-arm group (76,922.5 vs. 68,406.7 CNY, = 0.006). : Both the three-arm and four-arm robotic approaches demonstrated comparable safety and efficacy in RAPN procedures. Nevertheless, the four-arm approach is associated with elevated hospital costs. The preliminary findings suggest potential cost containment disadvantages for the four-arm technique in selected cases, though larger multicenter studies are essential.
机器人辅助部分肾切除术(RAPN)的出现标志着微创手术进入了一个新时代,并已成为治疗肾细胞癌(RCC)的首选方法。然而,即使在同一中心,也有报道称RAPN过程中机器人手臂的使用存在差异。在本研究中,我们旨在探讨三臂和四臂RAPN在效率、安全性和医院成本方面的差异。
这项回顾性研究分析了2021年1月至2023年12月在同济医院接受RAPN的91例患者的临床数据。患者分为两组:三臂组50例(使用三个机器人手臂和两个辅助端口)和四臂组41例(使用四个机器人手臂和一个辅助端口)。记录患者的人口统计学和肿瘤特征、手术结果及医院成本。对年龄、性别、体重指数、患侧、RENAL评分、肿瘤分期和病理分级进行倾向得分匹配(1:1)。我们基于手术结果和医院成本对三臂和四臂RAPN组进行了比较。
共有50例和41例患者分别接受了三臂和四臂RAPN。所有手术均成功完成,无需转为开放手术或根治性肾切除术。匹配后,四臂配置的总手术时间在数值上比三臂方法更长(146.5对120.0分钟,P = 0.068)。四臂组的医院成本显著高于三臂组(76922.5对68406.7元人民币,P = 0.006)。
三臂和四臂机器人手术方法在RAPN手术中均显示出相当的安全性和有效性。然而,四臂方法与更高的医院成本相关。初步研究结果表明,在某些特定情况下,四臂技术可能存在成本控制方面的劣势,尽管更大规模的多中心研究至关重要。