TY - JOUR
T1 - Omission of Cortical Renorrhaphy During Robotic Partial Nephrectomy
T2 - A Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative Database Analysis
AU - Arora, Sohrab
AU - Bronkema, Chandler
AU - Porter, James R.
AU - Mottrie, Alexander
AU - Dasgupta, Prokar
AU - Challacombe, Benjamin
AU - Rha, Koon H.
AU - Ahlawat, Rajesh K.
AU - Capitanio, Umberto
AU - Yuvaraja, Thyavihally B.
AU - Rawal, Sudhir
AU - Moon, Daniel A.
AU - Sivaraman, Ananthakrishnan
AU - Maes, Kris K.
AU - Porpiglia, Fansesco
AU - Gautam, Gagan
AU - Turkeri, Levent
AU - Bhandari, Mahendra
AU - Jeong, Wooju
AU - Menon, Mani
AU - Rogers, Craig G.
AU - Abdollah, Firas
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2020/12
Y1 - 2020/12
N2 - OBJECTIVES: To analyze the outcomes of patients in whom cortical (outer) renorrhaphy (CR) was omitted during robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). METHODS: We analyzed 1453 patients undergoing RPN, from 2006 to 2018, within a large multi-institutional database. Patients having surgery for bilateral tumors (n = 73) were excluded. CR and no-CR groups were compared in terms of operative and ischemia time, estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, surgical margins, hospital stay, change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and need of angioembolization. Inverse probability of treatment weighting with Firth correction for center code was performed to account for selection bias. RESULTS: CR was omitted in 120 patients (8.7%); 1260 (91.3%) patients underwent both inner layer and CR. There was no difference in intraoperative complications (7.4% CR; 8.9% no-CR group; P =. 6), postoperative major complications (1% and 2.8% in CR and no-CR groups, respectively; P =. 2), or median drop in eGFR (7.3 vs 10.4 mL/min/m2). The no-CR group had a higher incidence of minor complications (26.7% vs 5.5% in CR group; P < .001). EBL was 100 mL (IQR 50-200) in both groups (P =. 6). Angioembolization was needed in 0.7% patients in CR vs 1.4% in no-CR group (P =. 4). Additionally, there was no difference in median operative time (168 vs 162 min; P =. 2) or ischemia time (18 vs 17 min; P =. 7). CONCLUSION: In selected patients with renal masses, single layer renorrhaphy does not significantly improve operative time, ischemia time, or eGFR after RPN. There is a higher incidence of minor complications, but not major perioperative complications after no-CR technique.
AB - OBJECTIVES: To analyze the outcomes of patients in whom cortical (outer) renorrhaphy (CR) was omitted during robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). METHODS: We analyzed 1453 patients undergoing RPN, from 2006 to 2018, within a large multi-institutional database. Patients having surgery for bilateral tumors (n = 73) were excluded. CR and no-CR groups were compared in terms of operative and ischemia time, estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, surgical margins, hospital stay, change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and need of angioembolization. Inverse probability of treatment weighting with Firth correction for center code was performed to account for selection bias. RESULTS: CR was omitted in 120 patients (8.7%); 1260 (91.3%) patients underwent both inner layer and CR. There was no difference in intraoperative complications (7.4% CR; 8.9% no-CR group; P =. 6), postoperative major complications (1% and 2.8% in CR and no-CR groups, respectively; P =. 2), or median drop in eGFR (7.3 vs 10.4 mL/min/m2). The no-CR group had a higher incidence of minor complications (26.7% vs 5.5% in CR group; P < .001). EBL was 100 mL (IQR 50-200) in both groups (P =. 6). Angioembolization was needed in 0.7% patients in CR vs 1.4% in no-CR group (P =. 4). Additionally, there was no difference in median operative time (168 vs 162 min; P =. 2) or ischemia time (18 vs 17 min; P =. 7). CONCLUSION: In selected patients with renal masses, single layer renorrhaphy does not significantly improve operative time, ischemia time, or eGFR after RPN. There is a higher incidence of minor complications, but not major perioperative complications after no-CR technique.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85092075216&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85092075216&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2020.09.003
DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2020.09.003
M3 - Article
C2 - 32941944
AN - SCOPUS:85092075216
SN - 0090-4295
VL - 146
SP - 125
EP - 132
JO - Urology
JF - Urology
ER -