Home > Riviste > Minerva Urology and Nephrology > Fascicoli precedenti > Minerva Urology and Nephrology 2021 August;73(4) > Minerva Urology and Nephrology 2021 August;73(4):498-508



Opzioni di pubblicazione
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca


Publication history
Per citare questo articolo


ORIGINAL ARTICLE   Free accessfree

Minerva Urology and Nephrology 2021 August;73(4):498-508

DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6051.20.04052-7


lingua: Inglese

Robot-assisted versus open surgery for radical nephrectomy with level 1-2 vena cava tumor thrombectomy: a French monocenter experience (UroCCR study #73)

Nam-Son VUONG , Jean-Marie FERRIERE, Clément MICHIELS, Laura CALEN, Lorenso TESI, Grégoire CAPON, Henri BENSADOUN, Eric ALEZRA, Vincent ESTRADE, Grégoire ROBERT, Franck BLADOU, Jean-Christophe BERNHARD

Department of Urology, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France

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.

KEY WORDS: Carcinoma, renal cell; Thrombosis; Robotic surgical procedures; Nephrectomy

inizio pagina