Skip to main content
Download PDF

Comparing open and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy – a single institution report

BMC Urology volume 24, Article number: 197 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Open partial nephrectomy (OPN) has previously been considered the gold standard procedure for treatment of T1 localized renal tumors. After introduction of robot assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) as an alternative method to OPN, OPN was gradually abandoned at our department. The aim of the study was to retrospectively compare the results of patients treated with either OPN or RAPN for suspected renal carcinoma.

Methods

Patients who underwent either open or robotic assisted partial nephrectomy between January 1st 2010 and December 31st 2020 were retrospectively included in the study. Each tumor subjected to surgery was scored preoperatively by the RENAL nephrometry score. Complications within 30 days were assessed according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system.

Results

A total of 197 patients who underwent partial nephrectomy were identified; 75 were subjected to OPN and 122 were treated with RAPN. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to age (OPN: 63 years ± 11, RAPN: 62 years ± 10), gender (OPN: 71/29%, RAPN: 67/33%), body mass index (OPN: 28 ± 5, RAPN: 28 ± 5), ASA score (OPN: 2.4 ± 0.6, RAPN: 2.2 ± 0.5), or nephrometry score (OPN: 6.6 ± 1.7, RAPN: 6.9 ± 1.7, p = 0.2). The operative time was significantly shorter in the OPN group (81 min) compared to the RAPN group (144.5 min, p < 0.001). Mean perioperative blood loss was 227 ± 162 ml in the OPN group compared to 189 ± 152 ml in the RAPN group (p = 0.1). Mean length of stay was shorter in the RAPN group (3 days) compared to the OPN group (6, days, p < 0.001). Positive surgical margin rate was significantly higher in the OPN group (21.6%) compared to the RAPN group (4.2%, p < 0.001). There were no differences in the number of Clavien-Dindo graded complications between the groups (p = 0.6).

Conclusions

The introduction of RAPN at our department resulted in shorter length of stay and fewer positive surgical margins, without increasing complications.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Open partial nephrectomy (OPN) has previously been considered the gold standard for treatment for T1 localized renal tumors [1, 2], but the procedure is associated with perioperative morbidity and longer hospital stays when compared to minimally invasive procedures [3]. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) was first published as a case report in 1993, in which the authors emphasized the benefit of improved postoperative pain management and recovery as a clear advantage of this technique [4]. Today, LPN as a procedure demonstrates comparable oncologic results to that of OPN [5]. Robotic assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN), which was introduced in 2004, offers similar minimally invasive advantages to that of LPN, but increases operative visualization by three-dimensional imaging, the ability to control the camera without an assistant and improved dexterity through flexible instruments that mimics the function of the human hand [6]. In addition to superior visual and instrument control, RAPN has been shown to demonstrate shorter learning curve compared to LPN [7, 8]. After the successful introduction of robotic assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) at our department in 2014, the open partial nephrectomy procedure was gradually abandoned. RAPN was established as the standard procedure, although without evidence of RAPN as a method being superior to or even equal in quality to that of OPN. The aim of the study was to retrospectively compare the outcomes of patients who underwent partial nephrectomy by either open or robotic assisted partial nephrectomy at our department.

Materials and methods

The study was approved by the Regional Ethical Committee at the University Hospital of North Norway. Inclusion critera were the following: Patients over 18 years of age who underwent either open or robotic assisted partial nephrectomy of a suspected renal cell carcinoma between January 1st 2010 and December 31st 2020. The patients were identified by a search for the procedure codes of either OPN or RAPN in the electronic journal system (DIPS, Distribuert Informasjons- og Pasientdatasystem i Sykehus, Bodoe, Norway). Exclusion criteria were the following: Patients who had simultaneous surgery of other organs in the same surgical procedure, or patients with erroneous procedure codes; i.e. mismatch between procedure code and the actual surgical procedure. Patients who were converted from RAPN to OPN were also excluded from the study. All patients were retrospectively included in the study.

In the OPN group access to the kidney was achieved through a flank or anterior subcostal incision at the individual surgeon`s preference. The Gerota`s fascia was opened; the tumor was localized, and the renal vessels were secured with vessel-loops [2]. Intraoperative ultrasonography was not routinely utilized before tumor resection. The tumor was resected bluntly, and the renal artery was not clamped, unless bleeding control was considered inadequate.

In the RAPN group the procedures were performed with a standardized 4-arm transperitoneal 6-port approach using a 30° lens, a fenestrated bipolar forceps, monopolar curved scissors and a ProGrasp™ forceps (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). The da Vinci SI® (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) system was utilized from 2014 to 2019, while the subsequent cases were performed with the da Vinci XI® (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). After removal of perinephric fat, the tumor was visualized by intraoperative ultrasound in all procedures. In contrast to the procedures in the OPN group, the renal artery was clamped in all cases.

Clinical data were manually extracted from the available patient records (Table 1). Preoperative computed tomography scans of each tumor subjected to surgery were scored retrospectively by the RENAL nephrometry score [9]. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was calculated from serum creatinine and corrected for age and gender. The GFR was measured preoperatively and 7:30 AM every postoperative day until patients were discharged. Postoperative GFR was defined as the single lowest observed value in the postoperative period. The 30-day complication rate was retrospectively collected and graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system [10]. Statistical analysis was performed with the IBM SPSS software (Chicago, Ill). Comparisons of numerical variables between the groups were calculated with the t test. Between-group comparisons for categorical variables were analyzed with the Pearson chi square test or the Exact test, when one or more cells in the computed 2 × 2 table displayed expected cell counts of less than five. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Table 1 Preoperative data
Full size table

Results

A total of 197 patients who underwent partial nephrectomy were identified. Preoperative data from the patients are summarized in Table 1. A number of 75 patients underwent OPN, while 122 patients were treated with RAPN. The two patient’s groups were similar with respect to age, gender, body mass index, and ASA score. Nephrometry score was 6,6 ± 1,7 in the OPN group compared to 6,9 ± 1,7 in the RAPN group (p = 0,2). A summary of the collected peri- and postoperative data is presented in Table 2. There was no difference in preoperative GFR between the groups. Mean ischemia time was shorter in the OPN group compared to the RAPN group, but the difference was not statistically significant. However, 68 of the 75 surgical procedures in the OPN group were performed off-clamp. The ischemia time in this group therefore only reflects the mean time from 7 cases, in which the renal artery was actually clamped. In comparison, the renal artery was clamped in all 122 cases in the RAPN group. There was no significant difference in either postoperative GFR or a mean change in GFR from baseline between the groups. The operative time was significantly shorter in the OPN group (81 min) compared to the RAPN group (144.5 min, p < 0.001). Mean perioperative blood loss was 227 ± 162 ml in the OPN group compared to 189 ± 152 ml in the RAPN group (p = 0.1), while the mean length of stay was 3 days in the RAPN group compared to 6 days in the OPN group (p < 0.001). Positive surgical margin rate was significantly higher in the OPN group (21.6%) compared to the RAPN group (4.2%, p < 0.001).

Table 2 Peri- and postoperative data
Full size table

Complications within 30 days are displayed in Table 3. According to the Clavien-Dindo classification system, complications of any grade were present in 33.3% of patients in the OPN group compared to 30.1% in the RAPN group (p = 0.6). Grade II complications, such as treatment with antibiotics or blood products were most frequently observed. In the OPN group a grade II complication was documented in 14.7% of the patients compared to 13.8% in the RAPN group (p = 0.9). The more serious complications, grade III and IV, were much less frequently observed. There were no significant differences with respect to complications between the two groups.

Table 3 Complications within 30 days
Full size table

Discussion

Our study results are in agreement with similar studies, which have compared OPN to RAPN, indicating longer operative time for RAPN, but shorter length of stay [11]. While previous studies have shown less estimated bleeding in patients undergoing RAPN compared to OPN, the difference in bleeding between the groups did not reach statistical significance in our study. However, less bleeding has been repeatedly documented for patient series comparing OPN and RAPN [11, 12]. It has been hypothesized that the relatively lower bleeding volumes demonstrated by RAPN is due to the superior vision and instrument control provided by the da Vinci surgical system, which limits bleeding and allows for selective coagulation [3, 6]. We underline that the learning curve of RAPN is included in the data provided in the present study. While OPN was well established as the state-of-the-art surgery in the period of time from which these data were collected, the data in the RAPN group contains the very first procedures performed at our department. Although the steepness of the learning curve of RAPN probably relies on individual talent, skills and previous experience, a minimal number of 30 procedures has been suggested by Mottrie and others in order to master RAPN as a method [13]. However, in a later publication by the same group, the relationship between experience and warm ischemia time displayed a steep slope reduction within the first 100 cases and did first reach a plateau after 150 cases, while the learning curve for complications failed to reach a plateau, even after 300 cases [14]. We therefore speculate that estimated bleeding would have been significantly lower in the RAPN group, if more patients had been included the study.

Warm ischemia time is often considered a measure of the renal injury sustained during partial nephrectomy, regardless of whether the surgery is performed as an open or minimally invasive procedure. However, one important difference between the study groups is that the majority of the procedures in the OPN group was achieved without clamping the renal artery. In comparison, the renal artery was clamped in all the cases in the RAPN group, in order to complete the resection of the tumor. During an open off-clamp partial nephrectomy the bleeding may be controlled by gently applying manual pressure on the edges of the resected renal parenchyma. Although off-clamp partial nephrectomy may also be performed robotically, the lack of tactile feedback from the daVinci system makes it more difficult to control bleeding by applying direct pressure to the kidney in this setting. However, other techniques such as the application of multiple ultrasound-guided stitches in the tumor bed before resection has been described with excellent results [15].

The postoperative drop in GFR commonly observed within the first 48 h after partial nephrectomy is frequently utilized as evidence of acute kidney injury. A postoperative decline in GFR was also observed in both groups in the present study, but there was no significant difference between the groups. Excluding the seven on-clamp cases in the OPN group decreased the mean drop in GFR from 12 ± 11 to 11 ± 11 ml/min/1.73m2, indicating a small but significant correlation between the postoperative drop in GFR and warm ischemia time (Pearson correlation 0.29, p < 0.05). In general, assessment of acute kidney injury in partial nephrectomy represents a challenge due to the lack of an adequate biomarker [16]. A biomarker of tubular injury is warranted since the kidney tubule is the most metabolically active segment of the nephron and therefore uniquely susceptible to ischemic and nephrotoxic insults [16, 17]. We previously utilized histological injury score, urinary albumin and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio in order to distinguish the acute kidney injury between two groups of pigs which both exhibited a sixfold rise in serum creatinine following renal ischemia reperfusion injury [18].

An interesting finding in the present study is the significant lower positive surgical margin rate observed in the RAPN group compared to the OPN group. Although several studies have indicated fewer positive surgical margins in RAPN when compared to OPN [11, 12, 19,20,21,22], the present study represents only the second report to our knowledge of statistically significant differences in favor of RAPN compared to OPN with respect to positive surgical margin rate. Tan and others reported positive surgical margins of 10.9% in the OPN group and 3.5% in the RAPN group respectively, in a study of similar size, which also included the learning curve of the cases in the RAPN group [23]. Positive surgical margins usually occur in 2–8% of partial nephrectomies and may reflect the quality of the surgery. The reason for the unexpected high positive surgical margin rate in the OPN group in the present study is not known. Both low surgeon volume, which has been suggested as a risk of positive surgical margins by some authors [24], or the relatively small sample size are possible explanations. In general, great effort should be invested in avoiding positive surgical margins in partial nephrectomy, since it at least in theory raises the question of whether cancerous tissue remains in the resection bed [25]. A recently published meta-analysis based on 39 studies found no difference in survival among partial nephrectomy patients with positive surgical margins, although an increased risk of recurrence and metastatic disease was reported [26].

Study limitations include the small sample size, retrospective design, lack of randomization and the unequal number of patients in each group. The fact that the learning curve is included in the RAPN group supports the case for RAPN as an excellent concept for nephron sparing surgery, also in a department of relatively low volume.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are not openly available due to reasons of sensitivity and are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Data are located in controlled access data storage at the University Hospital of North Norway.

Abbreviations

ASA:

American Society of Anesthesiologists

GFR:

Glomerular filtration rate

LPN:

Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy

OPN:

Open partial nephrectomy

RAPN:

Robot assisted partial nephrectomy

References

  1. Minervini A, Vittori G, Antonelli A, et al. Open versus robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy: a multicenter comparison study of perioperative results and complications. World J Urol Feb. 2014;32(1):287–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cozar JM, Tallada M. Open partial nephrectomy in renal cancer: a feasible gold standard technique in all hospitals. Adv Urol. 2008;2008:916463.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. O’Connor E, Timm B, Lawrentschuk N, Ischia J. Open partial nephrectomy: current review. Transl Androl Urol Dec. 2020;9(6):3149–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Winfield HN, Donovan JF, Godet AS, Clayman RV. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: initial case report for benign disease. J Endourol Dec. 1993;7(6):521–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhao PT, Richstone L, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Int J Surg Dec. 2016;36(Pt C):548–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gettman MT, Blute ML, Chow GK, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: technique and initial clinical experience with DaVinci robotic system. Urol Nov. 2004;64(5):914–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gu L, Liu K, Shen D, et al. Comparison of Robot-assisted and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for completely endophytic renal tumors: a high-volume Center Experience. J Endourol May. 2020;34(5):581–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pandolfo SD, Cerrato C, Wu Z, et al. A systematic review of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy outcomes for advanced indications: large tumors (cT2-T3), solitary kidney, completely endophytic, hilar, recurrent, and multiple renal tumors. Asian J Urol Oct. 2023;10(4):390–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 Sep. 2009;182(3):844–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mitropoulos D, Artibani W, Biyani CS, Bjerggaard Jensen J, Roupret M, Truss M. Validation of the Clavien-Dindo Grading System in Urology by the European Association of Urology Guidelines Ad Hoc Panel. Eur Urol Focus Jul. 2018;4(4):608–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Grivas N, Kalampokis N, Larcher A, et al. Robot-assisted versus open partial nephrectomy: comparison of outcomes. A systematic review. Minerva Urol Nefrol Apr. 2019;71(2):113–20.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Porpiglia F, Mari A, Bertolo R, et al. Partial nephrectomy in clinical T1b renal tumors: Multicenter comparative study of Open, Laparoscopic and Robot-assisted Approach (the RECORd Project). Urol Mar. 2016;89:45–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 Jul. 2010;58(1):127–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Larcher A, Muttin F, Peyronnet B, et al. The learning curve for Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: impact of Surgical Experience on Perioperative outcomes. Eur Urol Feb. 2019;75(2):253–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lamoshi AY, Salkini MW. Off-clamp robotic partial nephrectomy: technique and outcome. Urol Ann Apr-Jun. 2015;7(2):226–30.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Waikar SS, Betensky RA, Emerson SC, Bonventre JV. Imperfect gold standards for kidney injury biomarker evaluation. J Am Soc Nephrol Jan. 2012;23(1):13–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bonventre JV, Vaidya VS, Schmouder R, Feig P, Dieterle F. Next-generation biomarkers for detecting kidney toxicity. Nat Biotechnol May. 2010;28(5):436–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Roaldsen M, Ciosek T, Elin R, Al-Saad S, Hiten Rh P, Aarsaether E. Isoflurane increases Tolerance to Renal Ischemia Reperfusion Injury compared to Propofol: an experimental study in pigs. J Invest Surg Apr. 2021;34(4):359–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Masson-Lecomte A, Yates DR, Hupertan V, et al. A prospective comparison of the pathologic and surgical outcomes obtained after elective treatment of renal cell carcinoma by open or robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Urol Oncol Aug. 2013;31(6):924–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee S, Oh J, Hong SK, Lee SE, Byun SS. Open versus robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: effect on clinical outcome. J Endourol Jul. 2011;25(7):1181–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lucas SM, Mellon MJ, Erntsberger L, Sundaram CP. A comparison of robotic, laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy. JSLS Oct-Dec. 2012;16(4):581–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pignot G, Mejean A, Bernhard JC, et al. The use of partial nephrectomy: results from a contemporary national prospective multicenter study. World J Urol Jan. 2015;33(1):33–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tan JL, Frydenberg M, Grummet J, et al. Comparison of perioperative, renal and oncologic outcomes in robotic-assisted versus open partial nephrectomy. ANZ J Surg Mar. 2018;88(3):E194–9.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Carvalho JAM, Nunes P, Tavares-da-Silva E, et al. Impact of positive Surgical margins after partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol Open Sci Oct. 2020;21:41–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Tabayoyong W, Abouassaly R, Kiechle JE, et al. Variation in Surgical Margin Status by Surgical Approach among patients undergoing partial nephrectomy for small renal masses. J Urol Dec. 2015;194(6):1548–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bai R, Gao L, Wang J, Jiang Q. Positive surgical margins may not affect the survival of patients with renal cell carcinoma after partial nephrectomy: a meta-analysis based on 39 studies. Front Oncol. 2022;12:945166.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to UiT – the arctic University of Norway for covering publication costs of this paper through the open access agreement with Springer Nature.

Funding

The project was funded by the Northern Norway Regional Health Authority under grant SFP1128-13.

Open access funding provided by UiT The Arctic University of Norway (incl University Hospital of North Norway)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway

    Marius Roaldsen, Thor Allan Stenberg, Hiten R.H. Patel & Erling Aarsaether

  2. UiT – the arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway

    Vetle Lohne, Hiten R.H. Patel & Erling Aarsaether

Authors
  1. Marius Roaldsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vetle Lohne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thor Allan Stenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hiten R.H. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Erling Aarsaether
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

VL collected and analyzed the data under supervision of EA and MR. HP established the robotic surgical programme. MR and TS performed most of the robotic cases. MR wrote the manuscript under supervision of EA. All authors contributed to the writing process and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erling Aarsaether.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The requirement to obtain consent to participate was waived by the Norwegian Data Protection Commissioner (Personvernombudet) in accordance with national regulations. Legal basis for the decision is secured under the Patient Records Act, § 6, second paragraph, and the Health Personnel Act, § 26.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roaldsen, M., Lohne, V., Stenberg, T.A. et al. Comparing open and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy – a single institution report. BMC Urol 24, 197 (2024). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12894-024-01586-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12894-024-01586-6

Keywords

BMC Urology

ISSN: 1471-2490

Contact us