The Transabdominal Lumbar Approach (TALA) for Robotic Renal Surgery—A Retrospective Single-Center Comparative Study and Step-by-Step Description of a Novel Approach
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Patient Selection
2.2. Investigated Variables
2.3. Statistics
2.4. Surgical Technique
2.4.1. The Retroperitoneal Approach (RP)
2.4.2. The Transabdominal Lumbar Approach (TALA)
3. Results
3.1. Patient Characteristics and Tumor Characteristics
3.2. Intraoperative and Postoperative Characteristics
3.3. 30-Day Morbidity
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Tan, J.-L.; Frydenberg, M.; Grummet, J.; Hanegbi, U.; Snow, R.; Mann, S.; Begashaw, K.; Moon, D. Comparison of perioperative, renal and oncologic outcomes in robotic-assisted versus open partial nephrectomy. ANZ J. Surg. 2018, 88, E194–E199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xia, L.; Wang, X.; Xu, T.; Guzzo, T.J. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies Reporting Perioperative Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy versus Open Partial Nephrectomy. J. Endourol. 2017, 31, 893–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhou, J.; Liu, Z.-H.; Cao, D.-H.; Peng, Z.-F.; Song, P.; Yang, L.; Liu, L.-R.; Wei, Q.; Dong, Q. Retroperitoneal or transperitoneal approach in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy, which one is better? Cancer Med. 2021, 10, 3299–3308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Abaza, R.; Gerhard, R.S.; Martinez, O. Feasibility of adopting retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy after extensive transperitoneal experience. World J. Urol. 2020, 38, 1087–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marconi, L.; Challacombe, B. Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for Posterior Renal Tumours: Retro or Transperitoneal Approach? Eur. Urol. Focus 2018, 4, 632–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fan, X.; Xu, K.; Lin, T.; Liu, H.; Yin, Z.; Dong, W.; Huang, H.; Huang, J. Comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2013, 111, 611–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Regmi, S.K.; Blake, P.; Weight, C.J. Trans-retro partial nephrectomy: A novel approach for posterior kidney tumors. Urol. Video J. 2019, 1, 100004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weltgesundheits Organisation. Cancer Pain Relief; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1986; ISBN 9241561009. [Google Scholar]
- Clavien, P.A.; Sanabria, J.R.; Strasberg, S.M. Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery 1992, 111, 518–526. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Wolters, U.; Wolf, T.; Stützer, H.; Schröder, T. ASA classification and perioperative variables as predictors of postoperative outcome. Br. J. Anaesth. 1996, 77, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xiong, S.; Jiang, M.; Jiang, Y.; Hu, B.; Chen, R.; Yao, Z.; Deng, W.; Wan, X.; Liu, X.; Chen, L.; et al. Partial Nephrectomy Versus Radical Nephrectomy for Endophytic Renal Tumors: Comparison of Operative, Functional, and Oncological Outcomes by Propensity Score Matching Analysis. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 916018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Baack Kukreja, J.; Kamat, A.M. Strategies to minimize readmission rates following major urologic surgery. Ther. Adv. Urol. 2017, 9, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chappidi, M.R.; Kates, M.; Stimson, C.J.; Bivalacqua, T.J.; Pierorazio, P.M. Quantifying Nonindex Hospital Readmissions and Care Fragmentation after Major Urological Oncology Surgeries in a Nationally Representative Sample. J. Urol. 2017, 197, 235–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Porte, R.J.; Leebeek, F.W. Pharmacological Strategies to Decrease Transfusion Requirements in Patients Undergoing Surgery. Drugs 2002, 62, 2193–2211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bic, A.; Mazeaud, C.; Salleron, J.; Bannay, A.; Balkau, B.; Larose, C.; Hubert, J.; Eschwège, P. Complications after partial nephrectomy: Robotics overcomes open surgery and laparoscopy: The PMSI French national database. BMC Urol. 2023, 23, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, M.S.; Kim, W.J.; Hyung, W.J.; Kim, H.-I.; Han, S.-U.; Kim, Y.-W.; Ryu, K.W.; Park, S. Comprehensive Learning Curve of Robotic Surgery. Ann. Surg. 2021, 273, 949–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, Q.; Zhang, H. Carbon dioxide pneumothorax following retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: A case report and literature review. BMC Anesthesiol. 2018, 18, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bhardwaj, N. Retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach for nephrectomy in children: Anesthetic implications. J. Anaesthesiol. Clin. Pharmacol. 2015, 31, 25–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cooperman, A.M. Complications of Laparoscopic Surgery. In Principles of Laparoscopic Surgery; Arregui, M.E., Fitzgibbons, R.J., Katkhouda, N., McKernan, J.B., Reich, H., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1995; pp. 71–77. ISBN 978-1-4612-7555-8. [Google Scholar]
RP | TALA | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|
Patient Characteristics | |||
Total no. Patients | 20 | 20 | |
Median age (range) | 65 (27–81) | 67 (41–84) | 0.62 |
Median BMI (range) | 28.3 (22.1–34.3) | 27.5 (17.8–35.9) | 0.25 |
Sex (male:female), n (%) | 12:8 (60:40) | 14:6 (70:30) | 0.74 |
ASA Score (1:2:3:4), % | 5:70:25:0 | 5:50:45:0 | 0.23 |
Previous abdominal surgeries (Yes:No), n (%) | 9:11 (45:55) | 5:15 (25:75) | 0.32 |
Type of surgery (Nephrectomy:Partial Nephrectomy), n (%) | 7:13 (35:65) | 9:11 (45:55) | 0.75 |
Tumor Characteristics n (%) | |||
Benign | 7 (35) | 3 (15) | 0.27 |
Malignancies-RCC | 12 (60) | 15 (75) | 0.50 |
Clear cell | 9 | 13 | 0.34 |
Papillary | 2 | 1 | 1.00 |
Other | 1 | 1 | 1.00 |
Non-functional kidney | 1 (5) | 2 (10) | 1.00 |
RP | TALA | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|
Intraoperative Characteristics | |||
Median total operative time, min (range) | 211 (154–289) | 207 (124–306) | 0.51 |
Median ischemia time, min (range) | 15 (9–30) | 17 (11–22) | 0.61 |
Median estimated blood loss, mL (range) | 175 (50–450) | 175 (30–800) | 0.98 |
R0-Resection, % | 92 | 93 | 1.00 |
R1-Resection, % | 8 | 7 | 1.00 |
Postoperative Characteristics | |||
Median hospitalization, d (ranges) | 6 (4–9) | 6 (4–8) | 0.80 |
Median Analgesia surgery day (WHO level scheme), range | 3 (1–4) | 3 (1–4) | 1.0 |
Median Analgesia POD 1 (WHO level scheme), range | 2 (1–4) | 1 (1–3) | 0.53 |
Median Analgesia POD 2 (WHO level scheme), range | 1 (1–3) | 1 (1–3) | 0.12 |
Median Analgesia POD 3(WHO level scheme), range | 1 (0–3) | 1 (0–3) | 0.16 |
Median Analgesia POD 4(WHO level scheme), range | 1 (0–3) | 1 (0–3) | 0.59 |
Median Analgesia POD 5(WHO level scheme), range | 1 (0–3) | 1 (0–3) | 0.29 |
Median Change in Kidney function (µmol/L), range | −8 (−20–+75) | −29 (−24–+114) | 0.02 |
Median Change in Hemoglobin (g/dL), range | −2.4 (0.1–6.9) | −2.5 (1.4–4.2) | 0.60 |
30-Days Morbidity | |||
Complications (Clavien–Dindo), n | |||
No Complications/Grade I | 17 | 15 | 0.44 |
Grade II | 0 | 2 | 0.15 |
Grade III | 3 | 2 | 0.64 |
Grade IV | 0 | 1 | 0.32 |
Readmission, n | |||
Rehospitalization, n | 1 | 5 | 0.05 |
IMC (intermediate care unit) | 1 | 1 | 1.0 |
ICU (intensive care unit) | 0 | 1 | 1.0 |
Blood transfusion, % | |||
Yes | 0 | 15 | 0.23 |
No | 100 | 85 | 0.23 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Heining, F.M.; Bieri, U.; Niemann, T.; Maletzki, P.; Tschung, C.; Adank, J.-P.; Rössler, F.; Nocito, A.; Hefermehl, L.J. The Transabdominal Lumbar Approach (TALA) for Robotic Renal Surgery—A Retrospective Single-Center Comparative Study and Step-by-Step Description of a Novel Approach. Cancers 2024, 16, 446. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16020446
Heining FM, Bieri U, Niemann T, Maletzki P, Tschung C, Adank J-P, Rössler F, Nocito A, Hefermehl LJ. The Transabdominal Lumbar Approach (TALA) for Robotic Renal Surgery—A Retrospective Single-Center Comparative Study and Step-by-Step Description of a Novel Approach. Cancers. 2024; 16(2):446. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16020446
Chicago/Turabian StyleHeining, Franziska Maria, Uwe Bieri, Tilo Niemann, Philipp Maletzki, Christopher Tschung, Jean-Pascal Adank, Fabian Rössler, Antonio Nocito, and Lukas John Hefermehl. 2024. "The Transabdominal Lumbar Approach (TALA) for Robotic Renal Surgery—A Retrospective Single-Center Comparative Study and Step-by-Step Description of a Novel Approach" Cancers 16, no. 2: 446. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16020446
APA StyleHeining, F. M., Bieri, U., Niemann, T., Maletzki, P., Tschung, C., Adank, J. -P., Rössler, F., Nocito, A., & Hefermehl, L. J. (2024). The Transabdominal Lumbar Approach (TALA) for Robotic Renal Surgery—A Retrospective Single-Center Comparative Study and Step-by-Step Description of a Novel Approach. Cancers, 16(2), 446. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16020446