Search

Objective: To introduce a modified sequential vascular control strategy, mimicking the open 'milking' technique principle, for the early release of the first porta hepatis (FPH) and to stop cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in level III-IV robot-assisted inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombectomy (RA-IVCTE)., Patients and Methods: From November 2014 to June 2019, 27 patients with a level III-IV IVC tumour thrombus (IVCTT) underwent RA-IVCTE in our department. The modified sequential control strategy was used in 12 cases. Previously, we released the FPH after the thrombus was resected and the IVC was closed completely, and CPB was stopped at the end of surgery (15 patients). Presently, using our modified strategy, we place another tourniquet inferior to the second porta hepatis (SPH) once the proximal thrombus is removed from the IVC below the SPH. Then, we suture the right atrium and perform early release of the FPH, and stop CPB. Finally, tumour thrombectomy, vascular reconstruction, and radical nephrectomy are performed., Results: Compared with the previous strategy, the modified steps resulted in a shorter median FPH clamping (19 vs 47 min, P < 0.001) and CPB times (60 vs 87 min, P < 0.05); a lower rate of Grade II-IV perioperative complications (25% vs 60%, P < 0.05); and better postoperative hepatorenal and coagulation function, including better median serum alanine aminotransferase (172.7 vs 465.4 U/L, P < 0.001), aspartate aminotransferase (282.4 vs 759.8 U/L, P < 0.001), creatinine (113.4 vs 295 μmol/L, P < 0.01), blood urea nitrogen (7.3 vs 16.7 mmol/L, P < 0.01), and D-dimer (5.9 vs 20 mg/L, P < 0.001) levels., Conclusion: With the early release of the FPH and stopping CPB, the modified sequential vascular control strategy in level III-IV RA-IVCTE reduced the perioperative risk for selected patients and improved the feasibility and safety of the surgery. We would recommend this approach to other centres that plan to develop robotic surgery for renal cell carcinoma with level III-IV IVCTT in the future., (© 2020 The Authors BJU International © 2020 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Robot-assisted thrombectomy (RAT) for inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombus (RAT-IVCT) is being increasingly reported. However, the techniques and indications for robot-assisted cavectomy (RAC) for IVC thrombus are not well described., Objective: To develop a decision-making program and analyze multi-institutional outcomes of RAC-IVCT versus RAT-IVCT., Design, Setting, and Participants: Ninety patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with level II IVCT were included from eight Chinese urological centers, and underwent RAC-IVCT (30 patients) or RAT-IVCT (60 patients) from June 2013 to January 2019., Surgical Procedure: The surgical strategy was based on IVCT imaging characteristics. RAT-IVCT was performed with standardized cavotomy, thrombectomy, and IVC reconstruction. RAC-IVCT was mainly performed in patients with extensive IVC wall invasion when the collateral blood vessels were well-established. For right-sided RCC, the IVC from the infrarenal vein to the infrahepatic veins was stapled. For left-sided RCC, the IVC from the suprarenal vein to the infrahepatic veins was removed and caudal IVC reconstruction was performed to ensure the right renal vein returned through the IVC collaterals., Measurements: Clinicopathological, operative, and survival outcomes were collected and analyzed., Results and Limitations: All procedures were successfully performed without open conversion. The median operation time (268 vs 190 min) and estimated blood loss (1500 vs 400 ml) were significantly greater for RAC-IVCT versus RAT-IVCT (both p < 0.001). IVC invasion was a risk factor for progression-free and overall survival at midterm follow-up. Large-volume and long-term follow-up studies are needed., Conclusions: RAC-IVCT or RAT-IVCT represents an alternative minimally invasive approach for selected RCC patients with level II IVCT. Selection of RAC-IVCT or RAT-IVCT is mainly based on preoperative IVCT imaging characteristics, including the presence of IVC wall invasion, the affected kidney, and establishment of the collateral circulation., Patient Summary: In this study we found that robotic surgeries for level II inferior vena cava thrombus were feasible and safe. Preoperative imaging played an important role in establishing an appropriate surgical plan., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objective: To present our preliminary experience of robotic left radical nephrectomy (LRN) and segmental inferior vena cava (IVC) resection without caval replacement for left renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with inferior vena cava tumor thrombus., Materials and Methods: Between 2017 and 2018, 7 patients underwent segmental IVC resection and LRN robotically. All patients underwent preoperative cavography, demonstrating complete IVC occlusion. Computed tomography-based 3-dimensional reconstruction revealed sufficient collateralization of the IVC and right renal vein (RRV). The cephalic IVC was circumferentially resected and ligated just below the second porta hepatis. The caudal IVC was circumferentially resected above the RRV with preservation of the major collaterals. The RRV was not dissected during the procedure to avoid compromising its neocollaterals. The IVC portion between the RRV and the second porta hepatis was removed en bloc with the tumor thrombus, and the LRN was performed., Results: All cases were successfully performed by robotic surgery without conversion. Median operative time was 420 minutes. Median intensive care unit stay was 3 days. Four grade Ⅱ complications occurred in 2 patients. One patient had mild LEE postoperatively and recovered without special medication. Median preoperative and 3-6 months follow-up serum creatinine was 118.7 μmol/L and 135.2 μmol/L, respectively. No patient needed dialysis postoperatively. One case occurred disease progression. No patient died during the follow-up period., Conclusion: Robotic segmental IVC resection for left RCC with inferior vena cava tumor thrombus is feasible in well-selected cases. Three-dimensional reconstruction and cavography are helpful in the preoperative evaluation of neocollaterals in patients with suprarenal IVC occlusion., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Level III-IV robot-assisted inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombectomy (RA-IVCT) has been reported in limited series., Objective: To report our initial series of level III-IV RA-IVCT with step-by-step procedures and 1-yr outcomes., Design, Setting, and Participants: From November 2014 to January 2018, 13 patients with level III-IV IVC tumor thrombi underwent RA-IVCT with a minimum of 1-yr follow-up., Surgical Procedure: Level III RA-IVCT requires liver mobilization and clamping of first porta hepatis (FPH), and suprahepatic and infradiaphragmatic IVC. Level IV RA-IVCT requires establishment of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Thoracoscopy-assisted thrombectomy was performed for the intra-atrium part of the thrombus under CPB. Infradiaphragmatic RA-IVCT was completed in a manner similar to that of level III RA-IVCT., Measurements: Detailed techniques were described for various scenarios. Baseline and perioperative outcomes were reported, and descriptive statistical analysis was performed., Results and Limitations: Median operative time was 465 (interquartile range [IQR]: 338-567) min. Median estimated intraoperative blood loss was 2000 (IQR: 1000-3000) ml. The rates of intraoperative blood transfusion and postoperative transformation to the intensive care unit ward were 92.3% and 100%, respectively. Median FPH blocking time was 40 (IQR: 25-60) min and the CPB time was 72 (IQR: 51-87) min. Three cases had grade IV complications, including two vascular injuries that were treated with intraoperative endoscopic sutures and one perioperative death. The perioperative mortality rate was 7.7%. During an 18-mo follow-up, two patients died and one patient progressed., Conclusions: Although the risks involved are high, level III-IV RA-IVCT is feasible and serves as an alternative minimally invasive method for selected patients. It also requires more complex techniques and multidisciplinary cooperation., Patient Summary: We studied the treatment of patients with level III-IV inferior vena cava (IVC) tumor thrombi using a robotic approach. This technique was feasible for well-selected patients. However, level III-IV robot-assisted IVC thrombectomy requires more complex techniques and multidisciplinary cooperation., (Copyright © 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: In clinical practice, objective basis for the choice between laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is scarce. To evaluate surgical outcomes, assess the individual benefit from LPN to RAPN, which can guide clinical decision-making., Methods: Patients underwent LPN or RAPN for a localized renal mass in our center between Jan 2013 and Dec 2016 were included. The surgical outcome of LPN and RAPN was the pentafecta achievement. A multivariable model was fitted to predict the probability of pentafecta achievement after LPN. Model-derived coefficients were applied to calculate the probability of pentafecta achievement in case of LPN among patients treated with RAPN. Locally weighted scatterplot smoothing method was applied to plot the observed probability of pentafecta achievement against the predicted pentafecta probability in case of LPN., Results: RAPN group had a significantly higher pentafecta achievement (54.6% vs. 41.1%, P < 0.001) than LPN. Multivariable analyses identified that tumor size, distance of the tumor to collecting system or sinus, and preoperative eGFR were independent predictors of pentafecta after LPN. When RAPN was chosen over LPN, the increase in the probability of pentafecta achievement was greatest in intermediate-probability patients. With the increase or decrease of the probability of pentafecta, the benefit of RAPN decreased., Conclusion: When pentafecta achievement are assessed, the benefit of RAPN over LPN varies from patient to patient. Patients at intermediate-probability of pentafecta achievement after LPN benefit the most from robotic surgery, which may be the potential ideal candidates for RAPN., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To compare the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) for completely endophytic renal tumors (three points for the "E" element of the R.E.N.A.L. scoring system). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent either RAPN or LPN between 2013 and 2016. Baseline characteristics, perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes were compared. Univariable and multivariable logistic analyses were performed to determine factors associated with pentafecta achievement (ischemia time ≤25 minutes, negative margin, no perioperative complication, return of estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] to >90% from baseline, and no chronic kidney disease upstaging). Results: No significant differences between RAPN vs LPN were noted for operating time (105 minutes vs 108 minutes, p  = 0.916), estimated blood loss (50 mL vs 50 mL, p  = 0.130), renal artery clamping time (20 minutes vs 20 minutes, p  = 0.695), rate of positive margins (3.3% vs 2.0%, p  = 1.000), and postoperative complication rates (18.0% vs 21.6%, p  = 0.639). RAPN was associated with a higher direct cost ($11240 vs $5053, p  < 0.001). There were no significant differences in pathology variables, rate of eGFR decline for postoperative 12-month (9.8% vs 10.6%, p  = 0.901) functional follow-up. Multivariate analysis identified that only RENAL score was independently associated with the pentafecta achievement. Conclusions: For completely endophytic renal tumors, both RAPN and LPN have excellent and similar results. Both operation techniques remain viable options in the management of these cases.