Key result
Robot-assisted radical nephrectomy shows no benefit over laparoscopic surgery for 30-day major complications.
Why the study?
To compare perioperative complications between robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma.
Does robot-assisted radical nephrectomy reduce 30-day major perioperative complications compared to laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in patients with renal cell carcinoma?
Cohort (n=1,545)
Yes
Does robot-assisted radical nephrectomy reduce 30-day major perioperative complications compared to laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in patients with renal cell carcinoma?
In patients undergoing radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma, robot-assisted and laparoscopic approaches have comparable 30-day major complication rates, though the robotic approach is associated with lower rates of surgical site infection, prolonged hospital stay, and open conversion at the expense of longer operative time.
Supports similar safety; leaves open whether robotic approach improves net outcomes in renal cell carcinoma.
Objectives: To compare the perioperative complications between robot-assisted (RARN) and laparoscopic (LRN) radical nephrectomy for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Methods: We conducted a retrospective study using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) Nephrectomy-Targeted database from 2019 to 2021. After using propensity score matching, we assessed the association between LRN vs. RARN and the outcomes of interest (primary outcomes of 30-day mortality, return to the operating room, myocardial infarction, and stroke; and secondary outcomes of perioperative complications and nephrectomy-specific outcomes). Results: Among the 1545 patients in the study (mean age: 62.9 ± 11.8 years), 722 underwent RARN and 823 underwent LRN. We did not observe any differences in the major complications between the two approaches. However, LRN was associated with an increased chance of surgical site infections compared with RARN (LRN 2.68% vs. RARN 1.19%, p = 0.047). LRN was also associated with a higher likelihood of a prolonged length of stay (OR 1.54, 95% CI: 1.15, 2.06, p = 0.004) and had a 2.7 times higher chance of conversion rate to open surgery (OR 3.70, 95% CI: 3.25, 4.15, p < 0.001) relative to RARN. However, RARN was associated with a longer operative time than LRN (estimated coefficient 30.67, p < 0.001). Conclusion: We found no significant difference in the major complications between RARN and LRN for patients undergoing radical nephrectomy. At the expense of a somewhat longer operative time, RARN was associated with a lower risk of SSI and a lower conversion rate to open RN. LRN and RARN should both be considered and selected on an individualized basis using tumor, patient, and physician factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mundra et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Renal cell carcinoma (n=1,545). Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) vs. Robot-assisted radical nephrectomy (RARN) was evaluated on Composite of major complications within 30 days of surgery (mortality, return to the operating room, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accident) (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.43, 2.00, p=0.848). Robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy showed no significant difference in 30-day major complications (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.43-2.00, p=0.848) in renal cell carcinoma.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: