Propensity-score matched analysis comparing robot-assisted with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy

BJU International

Volumn 115, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 437-445

  Wu, Zhenjie ^a   Li, Mingmin ^a   Song, Shangqing ^a   Ye, Huamao ^a   Yang, Qing ^a   Liu, Bing ^a   Cai, Chen ^a   Yang, Bo ^a   Xiao, Liang ^a   Chen, Qi ^b   Lü, Chen ^a   Gao, Xu ^a   Xu, Chuanliang ^a   Gao, Xiaofeng ^a   Hou, Jianguo ^a   Wang, Linhui ^a   Sun, Yinghao ^a  

^a SECOND MILITARY MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b SECOND MILITARY MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

complications; functional outcomes; laparoscopic partial nephrectomy; nephron sparing surgery; robot assisted partial nephrectomy

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; CHARLSON COMORBIDITY INDEX; CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CONVERSION TO OPEN SURGERY; FEMALE; GLOMERULUS FILTRATION RATE; HUMAN; ISCHEMIA; KIDNEY TUMOR; LAPAROSCOPIC PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OPERATIVE BLOOD LOSS; PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY; PEROPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PROGNOSIS; PROPENSITY SCORE; ROBOT ASSISTED PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE; SURGICAL APPROACH; TUMOR VOLUME; ADVERSE EFFECTS; AGED; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; KIDNEY NEOPLASMS; MIDDLE AGED; NEPHRECTOMY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROCEDURES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; HUMANS; KIDNEY NEOPLASMS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEPHRECTOMY; ORGAN SPARING TREATMENTS; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROPENSITY SCORE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84923064584     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bju.12774     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. MacLennan S, Imamura M, Lapitan MC, et al. Systematic review of oncological outcomes following surgical management of localised renal cancer. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 972-993
2. MacLennan S, Imamura M, Lapitan MC, et al. Systematic review of perioperative and quality-of-life outcomes following surgical management of localised renal cancer. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 1097-1117
3. Porpiglia F, Volpe A, Billia M, Scarpa RM,. Laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy: analysis of the current literature. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 732-742; discussion 42-3
4. Abouassaly R, Alibhai SM, Tomlinson G, Timilshina N, Finelli A,. Unintended consequences of laparoscopic surgery on partial nephrectomy for kidney cancer. J Urol 2010; 183: 467-472
5. Mottrie A, De Naeyer G, Schatteman P, Carpentier P, Sangalli M, Ficarra V,. 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
6. Long JA, Yakoubi R, Lee B, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for complex tumors: comparison of perioperative outcomes. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 1257-1262
7. Haber GP, White WM, Crouzet S, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: single-surgeon matched cohort study of 150 patients. Urology 2010; 76: 754-758
8. Aron M, Koenig P, Kaouk JH, Nguyen MM, Desai MM, Gill IS,. Robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison from a high-volume centre. BJU Int 2008; 102: 86-92
9. Aboumarzouk OM, Stein RJ, Eyraud R, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 1023-1033
10. Froghi S, Ahmed K, Khan MS, Dasgupta P, Challacombe B,. Evaluation of robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for small renal tumours (T1a). BJU Int 2013; 112: E322-333
11. Wang LH, Liu B, Wu Z, et al. Left transperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in the presence of a left-sided inferior vena cava. Urology 2011; 78: 469-473
12. Kaouk JH, Hillyer SP, Autorino R, et al. 252 robotic partial nephrectomies: evolving renorrhaphy technique and surgical outcomes at a single institution. Urology 2011; 78: 1338-1344
13. 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
14. 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
15. Simmons MN, Ching CB, Samplaski MK, Park CH, Gill IS,. Kidney tumor location measurement using the C index method. J Urol 2010; 183: 1708-1713
16. Simmons MN, Hillyer SP, Lee BH, Fergany AF, Kaouk J, Campbell SC,. Diameter-axial-polar nephrometry: integration and optimization of R.E.N.A.L. and centrality index scoring systems. J Urol 2012; 188: 384-390
17. Samplaski MK, Hernandez A, Gill IS, Simmons MN,. C-index is associated with functional outcomes after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Urol 2010; 184: 2259-2263
18. 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
19. Hung AJ, Cai J, Simmons MN, Gill IS,. 'Trifecta' in partial nephrectomy. J Urol 2013; 189: 36-42
20. Buffi N, Lista G, Larcher A, et al. Margin, ischemia, and complications (MIC) score in partial nephrectomy: a new system for evaluating achievement of optimal outcomes in nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 617-618
21. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB,. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat 1985; 39: 33-38
22. Austin PC,. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med 2009; 28: 3083-3107
23. Normand ST, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E, et al. Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 387-398
24. Stuart EA,. Developing practical recommendations for the use of propensity scores: discussion of 'A critical appraisal of propensity score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003' by Peter Austin, Statistics in Medicine. Stat Med 2008; 27: 2062-2065; discussion 6-9
25. Pierorazio PM, Patel HD, Feng T, Yohannan J, Hyams ES, Allaf ME,. Robotic-assisted versus traditional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison of outcomes and evaluation of learning curve. Urology 2011; 78: 813-819
26. Ficarra V, Novara G, Volpe A, Mottrie A,. Robot-assisted vs traditional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: the time for meta-analysis has not yet arrived. BJU Int 2013; 112: E334-336
27. Satasivam P, Sengupta S, Rajarubendra N, Chia PH, Munshey A, Bolton D,. Renal lesions with low R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score are associated with more indolent renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) or benign histology: findings in an Australian cohort. BJU Int 2012; 109 (Suppl 3): 44-47
28. Mullins JK, Kaouk JH, Bhayani S, et al. Tumor complexity predicts malignant disease for small renal masses. J Urol 2012; 188: 2072-2076
29. Kutikov A, Smaldone MC, Egleston BL, et al. Anatomic features of enhancing renal masses predict malignant and high-grade pathology: a preoperative nomogram using the RENAL Nephrometry score. Eur Urol 2011; 60: 241-248
30. Seo IY, Choi H, Boldbaatr Y, Lee JW, Rim JS,. Operative outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy: a comparison with conventional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Korean J Urol 2011; 52: 279-283
31. Becker F, Van Poppel H, Hakenberg OW, et al. Assessing the impact of ischaemia time during partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 2009; 56: 625-634
32. Khalifeh A, Autorino R, Eyraud R, et al. Three-year oncologic and renal functional outcomes after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 744-750
33. Kumar RK, Sammon JD, Kaczmarek BF, et al. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in patients with baseline chronic kidney disease: a multi-institutional propensity score-matched analysis. Eur Urol 2013; 65: 1205-1210