Skip to main content
Log in

3D-Image guided robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy: a multi-institutional propensity score-matched analysis (UroCCR study 51)

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is a difficult procedure with risk of significant perioperative complications. The objective was to evaluate the impact of preoperative planning and intraoperative guidance with 3D model reconstructions on perioperative outcomes of RAPN.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent RAPN for kidney tumor by three high-volume expert surgeons from academic centers. Clinical data were collected prospectively after written consent into the French kidney cancer network database UroCCR (CNIL-DR 2013-206; NCT03293563). Our cohort was divided into two groups: 3D-Image guided RAPN group (3D-IGRAPN) and control group. A propensity score according to age, pre-operative renal function and RENAL tumor complexity score was used. Both surgical techniques were compared in terms of perioperative outcomes.

Results

The initial study cohort included 230 3D-IGRAPN and 415 control RAPN. Before propensity-score matching, patients in the 3D-IGRAPN group had a larger tumor (4.3 cm vs. 3.5 cm, P < 0.001) and higher RENAL complexity score (9 vs. 8, P < 0.001). Following propensity-score matching, there were 157 patients in both groups. The rate of major complications was lower for patients in the 3D-IGRAPN group (3.8% vs. 9.5%, P = 0.04). The median percentage of eGFR variation recorded at first follow-up was lower in the 3D-IGRAPN group (− 5.6% vs. − 10.5%, P = 0.002). The trifecta achievement rate was higher in the 3D-IGRAPN group (55.7% vs. 45.1%; P = 0.005).

Conclusion

Three-dimensional kidney reconstructions use for pre-operative planning and intraoperative surgical guidance lowers the risk of complications and improve perioperative clinical outcomes of RAPN.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ljungberg B, Albiges L, Abu-Ghanem Y et al (2019) European association of urology guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2019 update. Eur Urol 75:799–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bertolo R, Autorino R, Simone G et al (2018) Outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for clinical T2 Renal tumors: a multicenter analysis (ROSULA collaborative group). Eur Urol 74:226–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.05.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bradshaw AW, Autorino R, Simone G et al (2020) Robotic partial nephrectomy versus minimally invasive radical nephrectomy for clinical T2a renal mass: a propensity score matched comparison from the ROSULA (robotic surgery for large renal mass) collaborative group. BJU Int. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15064

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Garisto J, Bertolo R, Dagenais J et al (2018) Robotic versus open partial nephrectomy for highly complex renal masses: comparison of perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes. Urol Oncol 36:471.e1-471.e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.06.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bernhard J-C, Robert G, Ricard S et al (2020) Day-case robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy: feasibility and preliminary results of a prospective evaluation (UroCCR-25 AMBU-REIN study). World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03283-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Khene Z-E, Peyronnet B, Bernhard J-C et al (2019) A preoperative nomogram to predict major complications after robot assisted partial nephrectomy (UroCCR-57 study). Urol Oncol Semin Orig Invest 37:577.e1-577.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.05.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ficarra V, Novara G, Secco S et al (2009) Preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) classification of renal tumours in patients who are candidates for nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol 56:786–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.07.040

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kutikov A, Uzzo RG (2009) The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J Urol 182:844–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Porpiglia F, Amparore D, Checcucci E et al (2019) Three-dimensional virtual imaging of renal tumours: a new tool to improve the accuracy of nephrometry scores: 3D virtual models improve the accuracy of nephrometry scores. BJU Int 124:945–954. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14894

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shirk JD, Thiel DD, Wallen EM et al (2019) Effect of 3-dimensional virtual reality models for surgical planning of robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy on surgical outcomes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2:e1911598. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.11598

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Checcucci E, Amparore D, Fiori C et al (2020) 3D imaging applications for robotic urologic surgery: an ESUT YAUWP review. World J Urol 38:869–881. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02922-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Porpiglia F, Checcucci E, Amparore D et al (2019) Three-dimensional augmented reality robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in case of complex tumours (PADUA ≥10): a new intraoperative tool overcoming the ultrasound guidance. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.11.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bertolo R, Hung A, Porpiglia F et al (2020) Systematic review of augmented reality in urological interventions: the evidences of an impact on surgical outcomes are yet to come. World J Urol 38:2167–2176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02711-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Larcher A, Muttin F, Peyronnet B et al (2019) The learning curve for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: impact of surgical experience on perioperative outcomes. Eur Urol 75:253–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. D D, N D, Pa C (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. In: Annals of surgery. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15273542/. Accessed 21 Sep 2020

  16. H M, W A, B D, et al (2009) Reassessing the current UICC/AJCC TNM staging for renal cell carcinoma. In: European urology. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19595500/. Accessed 21 Sep 2020

  17. Hung AJ, Cai J, Simmons MN, Gill IS (2013) “Trifecta” in partial nephrectomy. J Urol 189:36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Checcucci E et al (2018) Hyperaccuracy three-dimensional reconstruction is able to maximize the efficacy of selective clamping during robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for complex renal masses. Eur Urol 74:651–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.12.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Greco F, Autorino R, Altieri V et al (2019) Ischemia techniques in nephron-sparing surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes. Eur Urol 75:477–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gill IS, Eisenberg MS, Aron M et al (2011) “Zero ischemia” partial nephrectomy: novel laparoscopic and robotic technique. Eur Urol 59:128–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.10.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Smith GL, Kenney PA, Lee Y, Libertino JA (2011) Non-clamped partial nephrectomy: techniques and surgical outcomes. BJU Int 107:1054–1058. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09798.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Guillonneau B, Bermúdez H, Gholami S et al (2003) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumor: single center experience comparing clamping and no clamping techniques of the renal vasculature. J Urol 169:483–486. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000045225.64349.bf

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Thompson RH, Lane BR, Lohse CM et al (2010) Comparison of warm ischemia versus no ischemia during partial nephrectomy on a solitary kidney. Eur Urol 58:331–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.05.048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shao P, Qin C, Yin C et al (2011) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with segmental renal artery clamping: technique and clinical outcomes. Eur Urol 59:849–855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.11.037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Antonelli A, Cindolo L, Sandri M et al (2020) Safety of on- vs off-clamp robotic partial nephrectomy: per-protocol analysis from the data of the CLOCK randomized trial. World J Urol 38:1101–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02879-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hughes-Hallett A, Mayer EK, Marcus HJ et al (2015) Inattention blindness in surgery. Surg Endosc Other Intervent Tech 29:3184–3189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-4051-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

CM: protocol development, data management, data analysis, manuscript writing; ZEK: protocol development, data management, data analysis, manuscript editing; TP: data collection; ABH: data collection; FHC: protocol development; MP: data collection; HS: data collection; LD: data collection; HB: manuscript editing; GC: manuscript editing; EA: manuscript editing; VE: manuscript editing; FB: manuscript editing; GR: manuscript editing; JMF: manuscript editing; NG: protocol development; ND: project development, data collection, manuscript editing; KB: project development, data collection, manuscript editing; JCB: project development, data collection, manuscript editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clément Michiels.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Informed consent

Informed consent was collected for each patient which were all included into the French kidney cancer network database UroCCR (CNIL-DR 2013-206; NCT number 03293563).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Michiels, C., Khene, ZE., Prudhomme, T. et al. 3D-Image guided robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy: a multi-institutional propensity score-matched analysis (UroCCR study 51). World J Urol 41, 303–313 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03645-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03645-1

Keywords

Navigation