Comparison of the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in an initial case series in Japan

Journal of Endourology

Volumn 27, Issue 11, 2013, Pages 1384-1388

  Tanaka, Kazushi ^a   Shigemura, Katsumi ^a   Furukawa, Junya ^a   Ishimura, Takeshi ^a   Muramaki, Mototsugu ^a   Miyake, Hideaki ^a   Fujisawa, Masato ^a  

^a KOBE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANGIOMYOLIPOMA; ARTERY CLAMP; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; FEMALE; HEART MUSCLE ISCHEMIA; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; KIDNEY CARCINOMA; KIDNEY FUNCTION; KIDNEY SURGERY; KIDNEY TUMOR; MALE; NEPHRON SPARING SURGERY; ONCOCYTOMA; OPERATION DURATION; PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY; PLASMA CELL GRANULOMA; POSTOPERATIVE HEMORRHAGE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RENAL ARTERY; RENAL ARTERY CLAMPING TIME; RETROPERITONEAL APPROACH; ROBOTICS; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TRANSPERITONEAL APPROACH; TUMOR VOLUME;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; JAPAN; KIDNEY NEOPLASMS; LAPAROSCOPY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEPHRECTOMY; OPERATIVE TIME; RETROPERITONEAL SPACE; ROBOTICS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84887885457     PISSN: 08927790     EISSN: 1557900X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/end.2012.0641     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Russo P. Renal cell carcinoma: Presentation, staging, and surgical treatment. Semin Oncol 2000;27:160-176.
2. Uzzo RG, Novick AC. Nephron sparing surgery for renal tumors: Indications, techniques and outcomes. J Urol 2001;166:6-18.
3. Mottrie A, De Naeyer G, Schatteman P, et al. Impact of the learning curve on perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy for parenchymal renal tumours. Eur Urol 2010;58:127-132.
4. Singh I. Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: Current review of the technique and literature. J Minim Access Surg 2009;5:87-92.
5. Feliciano J, Stifelman M. Robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy: A four-arm approach. JSLS 2012;16:208-211.
6. Peycelon M, Hupertan V, Comperat E, et al. Long-term outcomes after nephron sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma larger than 4 cm. J Urol 2009;181:35-41.
7. Pearce R, Subramaniam R. Minimally invasive partial or total nephrectomy in children: A comparison between transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. Pediatr Surg Int 2011;27:1233-1237.
8. Patel M, Porter J. Robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy. World J Urol 2013. Feb 13 [Epub ahead of print].
9. Gettman MT, Blute ML, Chow GK, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: Technique and initial clinical experience with DaVinci robotic system. Urology 2004;64:914-918.
10. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-213.
11. Kutikov A, Uzzo RG. The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: A comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J Urol 2009;182:844-853.
12. Ficarra V, Novara G, Secco S, et al. Preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) classification of renal tumours in patients who are candidates for nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol 2009;56:786-793.
13. Wang AJ, Bhayani SB. Robotic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: Single-surgeon analysis of > 100 consecutive procedures. Urology 2009;73:306-310.
14. Benway BM, Bhayani SB, Rogers CG, et al. Robot assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors: A multi-institutional analysis of perioperative outcomes. J Urol 2009;182:866-872.
15. Michli EE, Parra RO. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: Initial clinical experience. Urology 2009;73: 302-305.
16. Yossepowitch O, Thompson RH, Leibovich BC, et al. Positive surgical margins at partial nephrectomy: Predictors and oncological outcomes. J Urol 2008;179:2158-2163.
17. Breda A, Stepanian SV, Liao J, et al. Positive margins in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in 855 cases: A multiinstitutional survey from the united states and europe. J Urol 2007;178:47-50.
18. Link RE, Bhayani SB, Allaf ME, et al. Exploring the learning curve, pathological outcomes and perioperative morbidity of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy performed for renal mass. J Urol 2005;173:1690-1694.
19. Permpongkosol S, Colombo JR, Jr., Gill IS, Kavoussi LR. Positive surgical parenchymal margin after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: Oncological outcomes. J Urol 2006;176:2401-2404.
20. Ficarra V, Bhayani S, Porter J, et al. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for renal tumors larger than 4 cm: Results of a multicenter, international series. S World J Urol 2012; 30:665-670.
21. Dulabon LM, Kaouk JH, Haber GP, et al. Multi-institutional analysis of robotic partial nephrectomy for hilar versus nonhilar lesions in 446 consecutive cases. Eur Urol 2011;59:325-330.
22. Wszolek MF, Kenney PA, Lee Y, et al. Comparison of hilar clamping and non-hilar clamping partial nephrectomy for tumours involving a solitary kidney. BJU Int 2010;107:1886-1892.
23. Scoll BJ, Uzzo RG, Chen DY, et al. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: A large single-institutional experience. Urology 2010;75:1328-1334.
24. Ng CK, Gill IS, Patil MB, et al. Anatomic renal artery branch microdissection to facilitate zero-ischemia partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 2012;61:67-74.
25. Weizer AZ, Gilbert SM, Roberts WW, et al. Tailoring technique of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy to tumor characteristics. J Urol 2008;180:1273-1278.
26. Weizer AZ, Palella GV, Montgomery JS, et al. Robot-assisted retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy: Technique and perioperative results. J Endourol 2011;25:553-557.
27. Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Lane BR, et al. Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors. J Urol 2007;178:41-46.