Robotic versus laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: a large multi-institutional analysis (ROSULA Collaborative Group)

Uzoma A. Anele, Michele Marchioni, Bo Yang, Giuseppe Simone, Robert G. Uzzo, Clayton Lau, Maria C. Mir, Umberto Capitanio, James Porter, Ken Jacobsohn, Nicolo de Luyk, Andrea Mari, Kidon Chang, Cristian Fiori, Jay Sulek, Alexandre Mottrie, Wesley White, Sisto Perdona, Giuseppe Quarto, Ahmet BindayiAkbar Ashrafi, Luigi Schips, Francesco Berardinelli, Chao Zhang, Michele Gallucci, Miguel Ramirez-Backhaus, Alessandro Larcher, Patrick Kilday, Michael Liao, Peter Langenstroer, Prokar Dasgupta, Ben Challacombe, Alexander Kutikov, Andrea Minervini, Koon Ho Rha, Chandru P. Sundaram, Lance J. Hampton, Francesco Porpiglia, Monish Aron, Ithaar Derweesh, Riccardo Autorino

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

21 Citations (Scopus)


Objective: To compare the outcomes of robotic radical nephrectomy (RRN) to those of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) for large renal masses. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of RRN and LRN cases performed for large (≥ cT2) renal masses from 2004 to 2017 and collected in the multi-institutional international database (ROSULA: RObotic SUrgery for LArge renal masses). Peri-operative, functional, and oncologic outcomes were compared between each approach. Descriptive analyses were performed and presented as medians with interquartile ranges. Inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted multivariable analyses were used to identify predictors of peri-operative complications. Kaplan–Meier analysis and Cox regression models were used to assess survival outcomes. Results: A total of 941 patients (RRN = 404, LRN = 537) were identified. There was no difference in terms of gender, age, and clinical tumor size. Over the study period, RRN had an annual increase of 11.75% (95% CI [7.34, 17.01] p < 0.001) and LRN had an annual decline of 5.39% (95% CI [−6.94, −3.86] p < 0.001). Patients undergoing RRN had higher BMI (27.6 [IQR 24.8–31.1] vs. 26.5 [24.1–30.0] kg/m2, p < 0.01). Operative duration was longer for RRN (185.0 [150.0–237.2] vs. 126 [90.8–180.0] min, p < 0.001). Length of stay was shorter for RRN (3.0 [2.0–4.0] vs. 5.0 [4.0–7.0] days, p < 0.001). RRN cases presented more advanced disease (higher pathologic staging [pT3–4 52.5 vs. 24.2%, p < 0.001], histologic grade [high grade 49.3 vs. 30.4%, p < 0.001], and rate of nodal disease [pN1 5.4 vs. 1.9%, p < 0.01]). Surgical approach did not represent an independent risk factor for peri-operative complications (OR 1.81 95% CI [0.97–3.39], adjusted p = 0.2). The main study limitation is the retrospective design. Conclusions: This study represents the largest known multi-center comparison between RRN and LRN. The two procedures seem to offer similar peri-operative outcomes. Notably, RRN has been increasingly utilized, especially in the setting of more advanced and surgically challenging disease without increasing the risk of peri-operative complications.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2439-2450
Number of pages12
JournalWorld Journal of Urology
Issue number11
Publication statusPublished - 2019 Nov 1

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2019, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Urology


Dive into the research topics of 'Robotic versus laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: a large multi-institutional analysis (ROSULA Collaborative Group)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this