Search

Background and objective: The purpose-built SHURUI single-port (SP) robotic platform has recently been introduced for several procedures in urology, general surgery, and gynecology. However, comparative evidence on its performance in relation to earlier models such as the da Vinci SP is lacking. Our aim was to compare the step-by-step techniques and 1-yr outcomes for radical prostatectomy (RP) between the SHURUI SP and da Vinci SP robots. Methods: Data were retrieved from two prospectively maintained databases. The SHURUI SP robot was used to perform RP in 34 patients in China (September 2021 to August 2022); the da Vinci SP robot was used to perform 100 consecutive RP cases in the USA (June 2019 to October 2020). A comparative analysis was conducted before and after 1:1 propensity score matching for age, body mass index, American Urological Association symptom score, prostate size, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, biopsy grade group, and D’Amico risk group. Intraoperative performance and short-term oncological and continence outcomes were compared between the groups. Biochemical recurrence was defined as two consecutive postoperative PSA levels >0.2 ng/ml. Continence was defined as full recovery of urinary control without the use of pads. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate continence recovery curves, and a log-rank test for trend was used to detect ordered differences in continence recovery between the SHURUI SP and da Vinci SP groups after surgery. Key findings and limitations: For the matched SHURUI and da Vinci groups, median age (69 vs 69 yr), median PSA (8.4 vs 7.1 ng/ml), and the proportion of patients with low-risk (33.3% vs 29.6%), intermediate-risk (66.7% vs 63%), and high-risk disease (0% vs 7.4%) were comparable (all p > 0.05). All surgeries were successfully accomplished without conversion. A higher percentage of cases in the SHURUI group involved extraperitoneal access (81.5% vs 0%; p

Background and objective: The role of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) for prostate cancer is still controversial. This study aims to compare the outcomes of PLND between extraperitoneal single-port (SP eRARP) and transperitoneal multiport (MP tRARP) robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis from our single-center database for patients who underwent SP eRARP or MP tRARP with PLND between 2015 and 2023. The primary endpoint was to analyze and compare specific data related to PLND between the two populations by the detection of pN+ patients, the total number of lymph nodes removed, and the number of positive lymph nodes removed. The secondary endpoints included comparing major complications, lymphoceles, and biochemical recurrence between the two cohorts of the study. Key findings and limitations: A total of 293 patients were included, with 85 (29%) undergoing SP eRARP and 208 (71%) undergoing MP tRARP. SP eRARP showed significant differences in PLND extension from MP tRARP, while MP tRARP yielded more lymph nodes (p

Background and objective: The Hugo RAS and DaVinci Xi systems are used for performing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). This study aims to compare these two platforms providing granular and comprehensive data on their intraoperative performance. Methods: The Comparison of Outcomes of Multiple Platforms for Assisted Robotic surgery—Prostate (COMPAR-P) trial is a prospective post-market study (clinicaltrials.org NCT05766163). Enrollment began in March 2023, allocating patients to DaVinci or Hugo RAS for RARP, without selection criteria, for up to 50 consecutive cases. Two experienced console surgeons performed the procedures, following the same technique. Evaluation focused on timing, learning curves, malfunctioning events, complications, and users’ satisfaction, using standard statistical methods, including the cumulative summation analysis (CUSUM) for the learning curve assessment. Key findings and limitations: Fifty patients each were enrolled for DaVinci (DV-RARP) and Hugo RAS (H-RARP) RARP. Baseline features were balanced. DV-RARP showed significantly shorter “setup” and “console” phase durations than H-RARP (37 vs 55 min and 97 vs 126 min, respectively, p

Background and objective: Renal tumour biopsy (RTB) can help in risk stratification of renal tumours with implications for management, but its utilisation varies. Our objective was to report current practice patterns, experiences, and perceptions of RTB and research gaps regarding RTB for small renal masses (SRMs). Methods: Two web-based surveys, one for health care providers (HCPs) and one for patients, were distributed via the European Association of Urology Young Academic Urologist Renal Cancer Working Group and the European Society of Residents in Urology in January 2023. Key findings and limitations: The HCP survey received 210 responses (response rate 51%) and the patient survey 54 responses (response rate 59%). A minority of HCPs offer RTB to >50% of patients (14%), while 48% offer it in

Context: The superiority of off-clamp robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) over the on-clamp technique has recently been questioned by randomized controlled trials comparing the two techniques. Objective: To systematically review the recent literature and perform a quantitative synthesis of data on the comparison of off-clamp versus off-clamp hilar control during RAPN. Evidence acquisition: A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for studies comparing off-clamp versus on-clamp RAPN in terms of perioperative and functional outcomes. The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023413160). Only prospective randomized controlled trials and retrospective matched observational studies were included. The primary outcome of the study was the percentage decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Evidence synthesis: A total of 11 studies were included involving a total of 2483 patients (944 patients in the off-clamp and 1539 patients in the on-clamp group). There was no difference between the two groups in the percentage decline in eGFR (mean difference [MD] 0.04%, 95% confidence interval [CI] −3.7% to 3.86%; p = 0.98). There were so significant differences between the groups for length of hospital stay (p = 0.56), complications (p = 0.08), conversion to open or radical surgery (p = 0.18), estimated blood loss (p = 0.06), or need for blood transfusion (p = 0.07). The operative time was shorter in the off-clamp group (MD−21.89 min, 95% CI −42.5 to −1.27; p = 0.04) but after sensitivity analysis the difference was no longer statistically significant (p = 0.15). The positive surgical margin rate was significantly lower in the off-clamp group (odds ratio 0.6, 95% CI 0.39–0.91; p = 0.02). Conclusions: Our review revealed no clinically relevant differences in perioperative and functional outcomes between off-clamp and on-clamp RAPN. Patient summary: In this review, we compared the two methods of controlling the kidney blood vessels during robot-assisted surgery to remove part of the kidney. We noted that there was no difference between the two groups for outcomes such as complications and the decrease in kidney function after surgery.

Context: The resection technique used to excise tumor during robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) is of paramount importance in achieving optimal clinical outcomes. Objective: To provide an overview of the different resection techniques used during RPN, and a pooled analysis of comparative studies. Evidence acquisition: The systematic review was conducted according to established principles (PROSPERO: CRD42022371640) on November 7, 2022. A population (P: adult patients undergoing RPN), intervention (I: enucleation), comparator (C: enucleoresection or wedge resection), outcome (O: outcome measurements of interest), and study design (S) framework was prespecified to assess study eligibility. Studies reporting a detailed description of resection techniques and/or evaluating the impact of resection technique on outcomes of surgery were included. Evidence synthesis: Resection techniques used during RPN can be broadly classified as resection (non-anatomic) or enucleation (anatomic). A standardized definition for these is lacking. Out of 20 studies retrieved, nine compared “standard” resection versus enucleation. A pooled analysis did not reveal significant differences in terms of operative time, ischemia time, blood loss, transfusions, or positive margins. Significant differences favoring enucleation were found for clamping management (odds ratio [OR] for renal artery clamping 3.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13–10.88; p = 0.03), overall complications (OR for occurrence 0.55, 95% CI 0.34–0.87; p = 0.01) major complications (OR for occurrence 0.39, 95% CI 0.19–0.79; p = 0.009), length of stay (weighted mean difference [WMD] −0.72 d, 95% CI −0.99 to −0.45; p

Background: Current literature does not provide large-scale data regarding clinical outcomes of robot-assisted (RAPN) versus open (OPN) partial nephrectomy. Moreover, data assessing predictors of long-term oncologic outcomes after RAPN are scarce. Objective: To compare perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes of RAPN versus OPN, and to investigate the predictors of oncologic outcomes after RAPN. Design, setting, and participants: This study included 3467 patients treated with OPN (n = 1063) or RAPN (n = 2404) for a single cT1–2N0M0 renal mass from 2004 to 2018 at nine high-volume European, North American, and Asian institutions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The study outcomes were short-term postoperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes. Regression models investigated the effect of surgical approach (open vs Robot assisted) on study outcomes, and interaction tests were used for subgroup analyses. Propensity score matching for demographic and tumor characteristics was used in sensitivity analyses. Multivariable Cox-regression analyses identified predictors of oncologic outcomes after RAPN. Results and limitations: Baseline characteristics were similar between patients receiving RAPN and OPN, with only few differences. After adjusting for confounding, RAPN was associated with lower odds of intraoperative (odds ratio [OR]: 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22, 0.68) and Clavien-Dindo ≥2 postoperative (OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.16, 0.50) complications (both p 0.05 on interaction tests). On multivariable analyses, we found no differences between the two techniques with respect to functional and oncologic outcomes (all p > 0.05). Overall, there were 63 and 92 local recurrences and systemic progressions, respectively, with a median follow-up after surgery of 32 mo (interquartile range: 18, 60). Among patients receiving RAPN, we assessed predictors of local recurrence and systemic progression with discrimination accuracy (ie, C-index) that ranged from 0.73 to 0.81. Conclusions: While cancer control and long-term renal function did not differ between RAPN and OPN, we found that the intra- and postoperative morbidity—especially in terms of complications—was lower after RAPN than after OPN. Our predictive models allow surgeons to estimate the risk of adverse oncologic outcomes after RAPN, with relevant implications for preoperative counseling and follow-up after surgery. Patient summary: In this comparative study on robotic versus open partial nephrectomy, functional and oncologic outcomes were similar between the two techniques, with lower morbidity—especially in terms of complications—for robot-assisted surgery. The assessment of prognosticators for patients receiving robot-assisted partial nephrectomy may help in preoperative counseling and provides relevant data to tailor postoperative follow-up.

Background: Recent randomized trials (RCTs) in the field of robotic partial nephrectomy (PN) showed no significant differences in perioperative outcomes between the off- and on-clamp approaches. Objective: To compare the perioperative outcomes of on- versus off-clamp pure laparoscopic PN (LPN). Design, setting, and participants: A multi-institutional analysis of the on- versus off-clamp approach during LPN in the setting of an RCT (CLOCK II trial; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02287987) was performed. Intervention: Off- versus on-clamp LPN. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Baseline patient and tumor variables, and peri- and postoperative data were collected. Randomized allocation with a 1:1 ratio was assigned. Surgical strategy for managing the renal pedicle was dictated by the study protocol. In the off-clamp arm, the renal artery had to remain unclamped for the duration of the whole procedure. Reporting the intention-to-treat analysis is the purpose of the study. Results and limitations: The study recruited 249 patients. Of them, 123 and 126 were randomized and allocated into the on- and off-clamp treatment groups, respectively. Treatment groups were comparable at baseline after randomization with respect to patients’ demographics, comorbidities, renal function, and tumor size and complexity. A univariable analysis found no differences in the perioperative outcomes between the groups, including median (interquartile range) estimated blood loss (150 [100–200] vs 150 [100–250] ml, p = 0.2), grade ≥2 complication rate as classified according to the Clavien-Dindo system (5.7% vs 4.8%, p = 0.6), and positive surgical margin rate (8.2% vs 3.5% for the on- vs off-clamp group, p = 0.1). No differences were found in terms of the 1st (81.3 [66.7–94.3] vs 85.3 [71.0–97.7] ml/min, p = 0.2) and 5th postoperative days estimated glomerular filtration rate (83.3 [70.5–93.7] vs 83.4 [68.6–139.3] ml/min, p = 0.2). A multivariable analysis found each +1 increase in RENAL score corresponded to an increase in the protection from the occurrence of complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54–0.97, p = 0.034), while each +1 cm increase in tumor size corresponded to an increase in the risk of blood transfusion (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.14–1.70, p = 0.001). Conclusions: In the setting of an RCT, no differences were found in the perioperative and early functional outcomes between on- and off-clamp LPN. Patient summary: In this study, we investigated, by means of a randomized trial, whether avoiding the clamping of renal artery during laparoscopic resection of renal mass is able to translate into benefits. We found no differences in terms of safety, efficacy, and renal function from the standard approach, which includes arterial clamping.