1,721,192 research outputs found
Outcomes and limitations of laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy
No full textThe objective of this review article is to summarize and critically analyze the studies published in the previous year and report perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN)
Posterior muscolofascial reconstruction incorporated into urethrovescical anastomosis during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
No full textThe rationale of posterior musculofascial plate reconstruction during radical prostatectomy is to shorten the time to reach urinary continence recovery and to reduce the risk of bleeding and anastomosis leakage. We describe our original technique incorporating the posterior muscolofascial reconstruction into urethrovesical anastomosis using robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). For this reconstructive step, we use a 30-cm V-Loc 90 3-0 barbed suture (V-20 tapered needle). Specifically, the free edge of the posterior layer of the Denonvilliers fascia is ap- proximated to the posterior part of the sphincteric apparatus in a running fashion from left to right. The muscu- lature of the urethral wall is incorporated in this first layer of the running suture. This suture is then continued back to the left in a second layer incorporating the anterior layer of the Denonvilliers fascia (or prostatovesical muscle), the bladder neck, and again the urethra, this time also with urethral mucosa. The urethrovesical anastomosis is completed using a second running barbed suture (15-cm V-Loc 90 3-0 barbed suture, V-20 tapered needle). No intraoperative complications were observed during this step of the procedure. Anastomotic leakages were observed only in 2% of cases. Only 12.5% showed urinary incontinence after catheter removal (1–2 pads). At mean follow-up of 9 months, the urinary continence recovery was 95%, and an anastomosis stricture necessitating an endoscopic incision developed in only three (1.5%) patients. Recent systematic reviews of the literature showed only a minimal advantage in favor of posterior musculofascial reconstruction in terms of urinary continence recovery within 1 month after radical prostatectomy. We support the use of this step of RARP because it is simple, reproducible, with a very limited increase in operative time, and with only a slight risk of potential harm to the patient. Moreover, it could improve hemostasis and provide greater support for a delicate anastomosis
Reply to Nikolaos Grivas and Henk G. van der Poel's Letter to the Editor re: Rui Farinha, Giuseppe Rosiello, Artur De Oliveira Paludo, et al. Selective Suturing or Sutureless Technique in Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy: Results from a Propensity-score Matched Analysis. Eur Urol Focus. In press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2021.03.019
No full text
Oncologic Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy: Results of a High-Volume Robotic Center
No full textCurrent role of training in robot-assisted urological procedures
No full textThe rapid introduction of robotic procedures necessitates new training methods. Currently, we can estimate that in a considerable proportion of the hospitals in Europe, the criteria for the surgeon's competence before starting with robotic surgery are insufficient. Therefore, the development of structured robotic training programs should be considered as one of the priorities that the urologic community must take into account in the near future
Partial Nephrectomy Versus Radical Nephrectomy for Clinical T1b and T2 Renal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies
No full textBackground Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the reference standard of management for a cT1a renal mass. However, its role in the management of larger tumors (cT1b and cT2) is still under scrutiny. Objective To conduct a meta-analysis assessing functional, oncologic, and perioperative outcomes of PN and radical nephrectomy (RN) in the specific case of larger renal tumors (â¥cT1b). The primary endpoint was an overall analysis of cT1b and cT2 masses. The secondary endpoint was a sensitivity analysis for cT2 only. Evidence acquisition A systematic literature review was performed up to December 2015 using multiple search engines to identify eligible comparative studies. A formal meta-analysis was performed for studies comparing PN to RN for both cT1b and cT2 tumors. In addition, a sensitivity analysis including the subgroup of studies comparing PN to RN for cT2 only was conducted. Pooled estimates were calculated using a fixed-effects model if no significant heterogeneity was identified; alternatively, a random-effects model was used when significant heterogeneity was detected. For continuous outcomes, the weighted mean difference (WMD) was used as summary measure. For binary variables, the odds ratio (OR) or risk ratio (RR) was calculated with 95% confidence interval (CI). Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Evidence synthesis Overall, 21 case-control studies including 11 204 patients (RN 8620; PN 2584) were deemed eligible and included in the analysis. Patients undergoing PN were younger (WMD â2.3 yr; p 7 cm). In this subset of patients, the estimated blood loss was higher for PN (WMD 107.6 ml; p < 0.001), as was the likelihood of complications (RR 2.0; p < 0.001). Both the recurrence rate (RR 0.61; p = 0.004) and cancer-specific mortality (RR 0.65; p = 0.03) were lower for PN. Conclusions PN is a viable treatment option for larger renal tumors, as it offers acceptable surgical morbidity, equivalent cancer control, and better preservation of renal function, with potential for better long-term survival. For T2 tumors, PN use should be more selective, and specific patient and tumor factors should be considered. Further investigation, ideally in a prospective randomized fashion, is warranted to better define the role of PN in this challenging clinical scenario. Patient summary We performed a cumulative analysis of the literature to determine the best treatment option in cases of localized kidney tumor of higher clinical stage (T1b and T2, as based on preoperative imaging). Our findings suggest that removing only the tumor and saving the kidney might be an effective treatment modality in terms of cancer control, with the advantage of preserving the kidney function. However, a higher risk of perioperative complications should be taken into account when facing larger tumors (clinical stage T2) with kidney-sparing surgery
Robot-assisted radical adrenalectomy with clamping of the vena cava for excision of a metastatic adrenal vein thrombus: A case report
No full textBackground Renal or adrenal neoplastic vein thrombi are relative contra-indications for laparoscopic treatment. To the best of our knowledge, we present the first robot-assisted radical adrenalectomy (RARA) with the presence of a thrombus in the adrenal vein.
Methods A 54 year-old male with a history of laparoscopic left radical nephrectomy for clear cell carcinoma was referred to our department with a diagnosed right adrenal tumour extending into the adrenal vein. A RARA was planned through a trans-peritoneal approach, and an en bloc resection of the adrenal and its vein with clamping of the vena cava was performed.
Results Console time was 94 min and the estimated blood loss was 44 ml. The pathology report confirmed clear cell carcinoma with negative surgical margins. Convalescence was uneventful.
Conclusion RARA with thrombectomy and vascular reconstruction can be safe, effective and feasible in experienced hands, using robotic bulldog
Pilot Validation Study of the European Association of Urology Robotic Training Curriculum
No full textThe development of structured and validated training curricula is one of the current priorities in robot-assisted urological surgery
- …
