Skip to main content
Download PDF

Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site ultrasound-guided renal artery balloon catheter occluded hybrid partial nephrectomy (LESS-HPN): a prospective pilot study

BMC Urology volume 25, Article number: 25 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

To investigate a novel intracorporeal minimally invasive procedure for robot assisted laparoendoscopic single-site partial nephrectomy.

Methods

This study reported our technique and the outcomes of a minimally invasive approach for partial nephrectomy, specifically robotic laparoendoscopic single-site ultrasound-guided renal artery balloon catheter occluded hybrid partial nephrectomy (LESS-HPN). A Freeport for LESS was inserted through a 4.5–5.0 cm skin incision. Instead of the traditional renal artery clamping technique, a Fogarty balloon catheter was used to occlude the renal artery or its branch. Tumor resection and wound suturing was then performed as routine steps.

Results

A total of 10 patients with T1 stage renal tumors underwent successful LESS-HPN from March to July 2023, with no conversions to renal artery clamping or additional ports. The mean operative time was 103.3 ± 11.1 min, including 21.0 ± 2.7 min of warm ischemia time. The mean estimated blood loss was 42.0 ± 22.5 ml. Tumors located posteriorly were associated with shorter operative time compared to those located anteriorly (p = 0.041). Occlusion of the main renal arteries, branch arteries, and accessory renal artery was achieved in 7, 2 and 1 cases, respectively. During a median follow-up of 10.5 months, no recurrence, metastasis, or death was observed. Limitations of this study include the small sample size, the absence of a control group, and the relatively short follow-up duration.

Conclusions

LESS-HPN has proven to be a safe and feasible alternative for achieving intracorporeal minimal invasiveness in patients with renal tumors.

Trial Registration

Clinical trials were registered in September 4th, 2021, available at www.chictr.org.cn/ (ChiCTR2100050808). This article belongs to a selection of patients who were part of this clinical study.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Robot assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is recognized as an effective minimally invasive alternative to open surgery for the treatment of clinically localized renal tumors [1, 2]. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) seeks to enhance the minimal invasiveness of laparoscopic procedures [3]. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site partial nephrectomy (R-LESS PN) has demonstrated technical feasibility and safety, yielding superior cosmetic outcomes, reduced postoperative analgesic requirements, and faster recovery [4,5,6]. However, the renal hilum dissection becomes more complicated due to the external collisions of the instruments and the restricted motion of the assistant due to the narrow space [4]. Consequently, Kaouk et al. reported R-LESS PN with the omission of hilar clamping, primarily for selected exophytic tumors [7]. Despite these advancements, R-LESS PN still requires refinements to address these challenges [8].

Previously, we introduced a laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) guided intervention technique to assist off-clamp partial nephrectomy, called Ultrasound-Guided Renal Artery Balloon Catheter Occluded Hybrid Partial Nephrectomy (UBo-HPN) [9, 10]. This technique involves temporarily occluding the renal arterial blood supply using a Fogarty balloon catheter. Preliminary results from our cohort study indicated that UBo-HPN is a safe approach that yields comparable surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes [9, 11].

In this study, we explored a novel surgical approach aimed at achieving intracorporeal minimally invasiveness: robotic laparoendoscopic single-site ultrasound-guided renal artery balloon catheter occluded hybrid partial nephrectomy (LESS-HPN) and reported its short-term outcomes in the first 10 cases.

Patients and methods

Patients

A total of 10 patients with T1 stage renal tumors, enrolled between March and July 2023, were prospectively included in this study. The inclusion criteria included the following: (i) patients with renal tumor and clinical stage were limited to T1NoMo, which was confirmed by image examination; (ii) patients aged 16–85 years. The exclusion criteria included the following: (i) patients with renal tumors near renal hilus or invading the renal sinus area that may require simultaneous occlusion of the renal vein during the resection of the tumor; (ii) patients whose tumor is supplied by multiple arteries and is difficult to block with one balloon; and (iii) patients with severe cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, especially with large vascular lesions. Informed consent was obtained from all patients, and assessments were conducted by the same physician. A preoperative evaluation was jointly performed by one surgeon and one specialized sonographer, based primarily on preoperative ultrasound, contrast enhanced CT, and CTA (only for cases requiring branch artery occlusion).

This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry and approved by the institutional ethics review board. This work has been reported in line with the STROCSS criteria [12].

LESS-HPN technique

All surgeries were performed using the da Vinci XI Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). After administering general anesthesia, the patient assumed a 70-degree lateral position. Following the open Hasson technique, a 4.5–5.0 cm lateral rectus incision was made on the affected side, and a Freeport (Ningbo SensCure Biotechnology) was inserted. The Freeport was equipped with one 8-mm optic trocar and two 8-mm working trocars, which were positioned at 12 o’clock, 3 o’clock, and 9 o’clock directions, respectively. Additionally, two assistant trocars were placed within the Freeport. (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

(A) After a Freeport (Ningbo SensCure Biotechnology) was inserted. One 8-mm optic trocar and two 8-mm trocars for robotic instruments were placed at 12o’clock, 3o’clock, and 9o’clock direction, respectively, and two assistant trocars were placed at the same time. (B) da Vinci XI robot was docked

Full size image

Through the two assistant channels on the Freeport, the monitoring area of the LUS probe was able to cover a large area of abdominal organsand vessels (Fig. 2). After locating the tumor with LUS, the perirenal fat was directly incised to expose the renal tumor border. Unlike conventional PN, the paracolic sulci, most of the perirenal fat, and renal hilum structures did not need to be dissected.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Through two assistant trocars, the monitoring area of the LUS probe can cover the large intra-abdominal vessels. (A) The LUS was swept to the long axis of iliac vessels through the assistant trocar caudal. (B) Through the assistant trocar caudal, LUS swept the long axis of the abdominal aorta. (C) Through the assistant trocar caudal, LUS swept the long axis of the abdominal aorta and renal artery orifice. (D) Through the assistant trocar cephalad, LUS swept to the long axis of the renal artery

Full size image

Actually, prophylactic dissection of the renal artery was performed in the first few cases of UBo-HPN, but this proved unnecessary. Therefore, the renal artery was not dissected in any of the subsequent LESS-HPN cases.

Ultrasound-guided femoral artery puncture was performed, and a vascular sheath was inserted. Under full LUS guidance, a catheter and a guidewire were advanced through the femoral vascular sheath into the main, branch, or accessory renal artery. A Fogarty balloon catheter was then placed at the target artery along the guidewire, inflated with saline to occlude the blood supply.

After confirming complete occlusion of the tumor’s arterial blood supply using color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI) or contrast-enhanced laparoscopic ultrasound (CE-LUS), the tumor was routinely excised and the wound was sutured in the conventional manner. The balloon catheter was deflated and withdrawn, and the renal wound was inspected for bleeding. The specimen was extracted through the incision. and a drain tube was placed at its lowest point (Supplementary Fig. 1). Hemostasis at the femoral artery puncture site was achieved using an arterial closure device.

Technical success was defined as the simultaneous achievement of: (i) complete occlusion of arterial blood flow confirmed by CDFI, or CE-LUS, with direct visualization during the following tumor resection and suturing, and (ii) absence of conversion to conventional multiport robot assisted or laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.

All patients received follow-up every three to six months.

Study variables

Baseline information was recorded for all patients. The complexity of tumors was determined with the R.E.N.A.L. score [13]. Intraoperative variables including operation time, warm ischemia time (WIT), estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion, and incision length was recorded. The number of additional access and any kind of conversion were recorded.Intraoperative or postoperative complications were grade according to Clavien-Dindo classification [14].

Patients received follow-up every three to six months in the first two years and then annually.

Statistical analysis

Categorical variables were expressed as frequencies and percentages. Continuous variables that conformed to a normal distribution were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Those that did not fit the normal distribution were expressed as median and interquartile range (IQR). Comparisons between the two groups (anterior vs. posterior location) were conducted using Student t-tests, and comparisons of dichotomous variables were conducted using Fisher’s exact probability method. Two-sided P value < 0.05 was considered for statistical significance.

Results

From March to July 2023, a total of 10 patients were included in the study, as outlined in Table 1. Among them, five patients (50%) had an anteriorly located tumor, while the remaining five patients (50%) had a posteriorly located tumor. Four patients (40%) had a history of one or more prior abdominal surgeries. The mean tumor diameter was 2.9 ± 1.1 cm, predominantly located on the left side in 80% of cases. Tumors were mostly T1a stage (80%), with 70% having a R.E.N.A.L. score less than 7. No statistically significant differences were observed in the baseline data between different tumor location (anterior and posterior) groups.

Table 1 Baseline characteristics and subgroup analysis between different tumor location (anterior or posterior)
Full size table

LESS-HPN was successfully completed in all 10 cases, as indicated in Table 2. The mean operative time was 103.3 ± 11.1 min, including 21.0 ± 2.7 min of WIT. The mean 48-hour post-operative serum creatinine increase (δSerum creatinine) was 1.6 ± 12.0 µmol/L, accompanied by an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decreased of 3.1 ± 8.1 ml/min/1.73 m2. Hemoglobin decreased by 1.8 ± 6.9 g/L postoperatively. The mean EBL was 42.0 ± 22.5 ml, with no intraoperative blood transfusion required in any case. The median incision diameter, measured upon suturing completion, was 4.6 (IQR 4.5,4.7) cm. There was no case of adding additional access. And no conversion to renal artery clamping, to radical nephrectomy, to open surgery, or to standard robot laparoscopy occurred. The operative time for posterior tumors was significantly shorter (p = 0.041). Other surgical outcomes were found to be independent of tumor location (anterior/posterior).

Table 2 Intraoperative outcomes and subgroup analysis between different tumor location (anterior or posterior)
Full size table

Among the 10 patients, renal artery occlusion was accomplished in six cases (60%) and branch artery occlusion was accomplished in two (20%). For patients with accessory renal arteries, one patient (10%) underwent accessory renal artery occlusion without main renal artery occlusion. Another had main renal artery occlusion without accessory artery occlusion (Supplementary Table 1).

The median follow-up time was 10.5 mo. Postoperative pathology confirmed no positive surgical margin, and no recurrence was observed during follow-up. Four patients (40%) were diagnosed with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Angiomyolipoma was diagnosed in 2 cases (20%). Papillary renal cell carcinoma, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, oncocytoma and multilocular cystic renal neoplasm was diagnosed in 1 case (10%) respectively (Supplementary Table 2).

Discussion

Minimally invasive surgery, with its focus on reducing invasiveness, prioritizes better cosmetic outcomes and advantages in postoperative analgesia [6, 15,16,17,18,19,20]. R-LESS further reduces complication risks compared to conventional LESS [21]. Despite the da Vinci single-port (SP) system offering improved integration with LESS surgery, its limited availability in most medical centers is largely due to cost considerations.

UBo-HPN aims to maximize minimally invasive intracorporeal techniques. This technique eliminates the need for dissection of the renal hilum, paracolic sulci, or kidney mobilization. The intra-abdominal approach involves a small peritoneal incision and fenestration of the renal tumor surface. Instead of traditional renal artery clamping, a Fogarty balloon catheter, guided by LUS, temporarily occludes arterial blood flow. Our unpublished clinical data of70 cases has confirmed its safety and a high technical success rate.

To further advance intracorporeal and cutaneous minimally invasive goals, we developed the LESS-HPN technique. Initial results from 10 cases indicated that LESS-HPN was a safe procedure, with no complications or recurrence. The average EBL for LESS-HPN was 42 ml, significantly lower than the previously reported multi-port RAPN or R-LESS PN [22].

The most promising feature of LESS-HPN was the synergy between R-LESS and UBo-HPN, which together result in favorable surgical outcomes. The mean operative time of 103 min was much shorter than the durations exceeding 300 min reported for both LESS-PN or multi-port RAPN [22]. Additionally, the WIT for both the anterior and posterior groups was notably reduced to 21.8 and 20.2 min, respectively, which not only surpassed the reported LESS-PN duration of 26.5 min but also approached the WIT of multi-port PN at 20.2 min [22]. Furthermore, our cohort exhibited a significantly lower postoperative decline in eGFR [22].

Previous studies have reported high conversion rates for LESS, ranging from 7.9 to 14.2%, and the need for additional ports in 19–61.6% of LESS-PN procedures [19, 21, 23]. Notably, 37% of cases were converted due to difficult dissection, and 25% due to bleeding [21]. In contrast, our research suggested that LESS-HPN offered a viable solution to these challenges, as none of our cases required additional access or conversion to conventional surgery. Simplifying the intracorporeal procedure has significantly reduced the complexity of dissection, particularly in the renal hilar structures, thus minimizing the risk of vascular damage and bleeding. In essence, LESS-HPN renders LESS procedures less technically demanding and more minimally invasive [22].

Another notable advantage of LESS-HPN was its ability to achieve highly selective branch renal artery occlusion in cases where the tumor was supplied by specific branches, as confirmed by CTA. Despite the variability in the renal vascular anatomy and tumor-specific blood supply, CTA imaging combined with LUS guidance allowed ultrasonographers to clearly identify the branches of the target artery supplying the tumor [9]. This selective intravascular occlusion, as opposed to segmental renal artery clamping, mitigated the risk of dissecting higher-order tumor feeding arteries and associated vascular damage [24, 25]. Following selective branch artery occlusion, the partial ischemia of the kidney can be promptly confirmed by CDFI or CE-LUS [24].

Our preliminary findings demonstrated that LESS-HPN is particularly effective for non-complex renal tumors, making it a preferable option for patients with a history of prior abdominal surgery and significant intra-abdominal adhesions [9]. In such cases, LESS-HPN minimized intracorporeal manipulation, offering more pronounced minimally invasive advantages.

Limitation

LESS-HPN shows greater effectiveness for certain patients, including those with lower BMI [26]. However, the classic flaws of LESS such as instrument collisions still presents. Additionally, there is necessarily a learning curve for LESS-HPN. Lastly, this study was limited by its small sample size.

Conclusion

Our first exploration with LESS-HPN indicated that it is a safe and feasible alternative to the treatment of renal tumors. LESS-HPN, a combination of R-LESS with UBo-HPN, achieve both cutaneous and intracorporeal minimally invasiveness. Controlled studies with larger size were expected in the future.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, Heng Li, upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

LESS-HPN:

Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Ultrasound-Guided Renal Artery Balloon Catheter Occluded Hybrid Partial Nephrectomy

RAPN:

Robot assisted partial nephrectomy

R-LESS PN:

Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site partial nephrectomy

LUS:

Laparoscopic ultrasound

UBo-HPN:

Ultrasound-Guided Renal Artery Balloon Catheter Occluded Hybrid Partial Nephrectomy

CDFI:

Color Doppler flow imaging

CE-LUS:

Contrast-enhanced laparoscopic ultrasound ()

WIT:

Warm ischemia time

EBL:

Estimated blood loss

SD:

Standard deviation

IQR:

Interquartile range

eGFR:

Estimated glomerular filtration rate

SP:

Single-port

References

  1. Dobbs RW, Magnan BP, Abhyankar N, Hemal AK, Challacombe B, Hu J, et al. Cost effectiveness and robot-assisted urologic surgery: does it make dollars and sense? Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2017;69(4):313–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Casale P, Lughezzani G, Buffi N, Larcher A, Porter J, Mottrie A, et al. Evolution of Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: techniques and outcomes from the Transatlantic Robotic Nephron-sparing surgery Study Group. Eur Urol. 2019;76(2):222–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kommu SS, Kaouk JH, Rane A. Laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery: preliminary advances in renal surgery. BJU Int. 2009;103(8):1034–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Komninos C, Tuliao P, Kim DK, Choi YD, Chung BH, Rha KH. Robot-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site partial nephrectomy with the novel da vinci single-site platform: initial experience. Korean J Urol. 2014;55(6):380–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Park SK, Olweny EO, Best SL, Tracy CR, Mir SA, Cadeddu JA. Patient-reported body image and cosmesis outcomes following kidney surgery: comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site, laparoscopic, and open surgery. Eur Urol. 2011;60(5):1097–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kaouk JH, Goel RK, Haber GP, Crouzet S, Stein RJ. Robotic single-port transumbilical surgery in humans: initial report. BJU Int. 2009;103(3):366–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaouk JH, Goel RK. Single-port laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5):1163–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Minervini A, Siena G, Serni S, Carini M. Robotic laparoscopic single-site partial nephrectomy: almost like driving with the steering lock engaged. Eur Urol. 2014;66(3):518–9. discussion 20– 1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Shi X, Yu Y, Ye T, Yu G, Xu B, Zhang Z, et al. Initial experience with hybrid partial nephrectomy with Ultrasound-guided balloon catheter occlusion of the renal artery for recurrent renal tumors. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2024;60:47–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Ye T, Shi X, Yu Y, Yu G, Xu B, Zhang Z, et al. Ultrasound-guided renal artery balloon catheter occluded hybrid partial nephrectomy (UBo-HPN) with branch renal artery occlusion: a single arm trial. World J Urol. 2024;42(1):570.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Li H, Ye TR, Long G, et al. Preliminary use of one-stop hybridization in renal tumors: DSA-guided balloon occlusion of the branch renal arteries in hybrid partial nephrectomy. J Clin Urol (China). 2023;38(10):755–758765. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.13201/j.issn.1001-1420.2023.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mathew G, Agha R, Albrecht J, Goel P, Mukherjee I, Pai P, et al. STROCSS 2021: strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery. Int J Surg. 2021;96:106165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kutikov A, Smaldone MC, Egleston BL, Manley BJ, Canter DJ, Simhan J, 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(2):241–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):187–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cindolo L, Scoffone C, Salzano L, Autorino R, Mirone V, Schips L. Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) adrenalectomy and partial nephrectomy: current Italian experience with two challenging surgical procedures. Surg Technol Int. 2010;20:240–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Takeda A, Imoto S, Mori M, Nakano T, Nakamura H. Isobaric laparoendoscopic single-site surgery with wound retractor for adnexal tumors: a single center experience with the initial 100 cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;157(2):190–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Raman JD, Bagrodia A, Cadeddu JA. Single-incision, umbilical laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy: a comparison of perioperative outcomes and short-term measures of convalescence. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5):1198–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Canes D, Desai MM, Aron M, Haber GP, Goel RK, Stein RJ, et al. Transumbilical single-port surgery: evolution and current status. Eur Urol. 2008;54(5):1020–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fan X, Lin T, Xu K, Yin Z, Huang H, Dong W, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy compared with conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2012;62(4):601–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Autorino R, Cadeddu JA, Desai MM, Gettman M, Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in urology: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol. 2011;59(1):26–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Greco F, Autorino R, Rha KH, Derweesh I, Cindolo L, Richstone L, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site partial nephrectomy: a multi-institutional outcome analysis. Eur Urol. 2013;64(2):314–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Komninos C, Shin TY, Tuliao P, Yoon YE, Koo KC, Chang CH, et al. R-LESS partial nephrectomy trifecta outcome is inferior to multiport robotic partial nephrectomy: comparative analysis. Eur Urol. 2014;66(3):512–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kaouk JH, Autorino R, Kim FJ, Han DH, Lee SW, Yinghao S, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in urology: worldwide multi-institutional analysis of 1076 cases. Eur Urol. 2011;60(5):998–1005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wu C, Guo S, Zhuo S, Wang Y, Ye Y, Li Z, et al. Better specificity and less ischemia: three-dimensional reconstruction is superior to routine computed tomography angiography in navigation of super-selective clamping robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Transl Androl Urol. 2023;12(1):97–111.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Shao P, Qin C, Yin C, Meng X, Ju X, Li J, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with segmental renal artery clamping: technique and clinical outcomes. Eur Urol. 2011;59(5):849–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gettman MT, White WM, Aron M, Autorino R, Averch T, Box G, et al. Where do we really stand with LESS and NOTES? Eur Urol. 2011;59(2):231–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81402098), Project of China Urological Tumor Research Fund (No. 2023041) funded by China Primary Health Care Foundation, and Key Program of Tongji Hospital research fund (No. 2022A09). The funders had no role in study design, data collection or analysis, preparation of the manuscript, or the decision to publish.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Xu Shi, Yang Yu, Tianrun Ye and Gan Yu contributed equally to this work, therefore should be considered co-first author.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital of Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China

    Xu Shi, Tianrun Ye, Gan Yu, Zheng Liu, Ke Chen, Wei Guan, Shaogang Wang & Heng Li

  2. Institute of Urology of Hubei Province, Wuhan, 430030, China

    Tianrun Ye, Gan Yu, Zheng Liu, Ke Chen, Wei Guan, Shaogang Wang & Heng Li

  3. Department of Ultrasound, Tongji Hospital of Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

    Yang Yu

  4. Department of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

    Xu Shi

  5. Department of Urology, Guizhou Provincial People’s Hospital, Guiyang, 550004, China

    Bin Xu

  6. Department of Urology, The Central Hospital of Xiaogan, Xiaogan, 432100, China

    Tianrun Ye

Authors
  1. Xu Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yang Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tianrun Ye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gan Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bin Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zheng Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ke Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. Wei Guan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  9. Shaogang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  10. Heng Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

X Shi: Project administration; Formal analysis; Visualisation; Writing-original draft. Y Yu: Conceputation; Methodology; Investigation; Project administration; Writing-original draft. TR Ye: Data curation; Validation. G Yu: Data curation; Validation. B Xu: Validation. Z Liu: Validation. K Chen: Investigation; Validation. W Guan: Investigation; Validation. SG Wang: Project administration; Supervision; Validation. H Li: Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Supervision; Validation; Writing-review and editing.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Shaogang Wang or Heng Li.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The ethics committee of Tongji Hospital of Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology approved this study (No. 2020S138). Informed consent to participate was obtained from all of the participants in the study. Our study adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

All authors consent to publication.

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.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shi, X., Yu, Y., Ye, T. et al. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site ultrasound-guided renal artery balloon catheter occluded hybrid partial nephrectomy (LESS-HPN): a prospective pilot study. BMC Urol 25, 25 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12894-025-01711-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12894-025-01711-z

Keywords

BMC Urology

ISSN: 1471-2490

Contact us