Key result
Robot-assisted radical nephrectomy for renal tumors with level 1-2 IVC thrombus was associated with lower estimated blood loss (500 vs. 1250 mL, P=0.02) and shorter length of stay than open surgery.
Why the study?
The feasibility of robot-assisted radical nephrectomy with inferior vena cava thrombectomy compared to open surgery for renal tumors with level 1-2 inferior vena cava thrombus needed assessment.
Does robot-assisted radical nephrectomy improve perioperative outcomes compared to open surgery in patients with renal cancer and level 1-2 IVC thrombus?
Cohort (n=40)
No
Does robot-assisted radical nephrectomy improve perioperative outcomes compared to open surgery in patients with renal cancer and level 1-2 IVC thrombus?
Absolute Event Rate: 500% vs 1250%
p-value: p=0.02
Robot-assisted radical nephrectomy with IVC thrombectomy is feasible and safe, offering reduced blood loss and shorter hospital stay at the cost of longer operative time compared to open surgery.
May support robotic approach in select cases; leaves open need for prospective trials on oncologic outcomes.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this paper was to assess the feasibility of robot-assisted radical nephrectomy (RN) with inferior vena cava thrombectomy (RRVCT) and compare perioperative and oncological outcomes of this approach to open surgery for renal tumors with level 1-2 inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombus. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients surgically treated for renal cancer with IVC level 1-2 thrombus in the Urology department of Bordeaux University Hospital between December 2015 and December 2019. Patients were stratified by surgical approach in two groups: open vs. robotic procedures. Pre-, per- and postoperative data were collected within the framework of the UroCCR project (NCT03293563). Univariate and multivariate analysis using regression models were performed. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients underwent RN with IVC tumor thrombus. Open and robotic surgery represented respectively 30 and 10 cases. The two groups were comparable regarding pre-operative tumor and patient characteristics. Robotic procedures were associated with lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (500 vs. 1250 mL, P=0.02), shorter Intensive Care Unit stay (2 vs. 4 days, P=0.03) and decrease of global length of stay (LOS) (7 vs. 10 days, P<0.01). Operative Time (OT) was significantly longer in the robotic group (350.5 vs. 208 min, P<0.01). No difference were observed between the two approaches regarding complications and oncological outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic approach induced lower bleeding and shorter LOS but required longer OT. This technique is feasible and safe for selected cases and experimented surgical teams. Complications rate and oncological outcomes are not different compared to standard open procedures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vuong et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Renal cancer with inferior vena cava level 1-2 thrombus (n=40). Robot-assisted radical nephrectomy vs. Open surgery was evaluated on Estimated blood loss (mL) (p=0.02). Robot-assisted radical nephrectomy for renal tumors with level 1-2 IVC thrombus was associated with lower estimated blood loss (500 vs. 1250 mL, P=0.02) and shorter length of stay than open surgery.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: