Only a few studies have compared the outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN). This study aimed to compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes of RPN and OPN.
The data of all patients who underwent partial nephrectomy from 2006 to 2014 in six academic departments of urology were retrospectively collected. Perioperative outcomes were compared between OPN and RPN patients. Cancer-specific survival (CSS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test.
The study included 1800 patients: 937 who underwent RPN and 863 who underwent OPN. The patients in the robotic group had smaller tumors (33.1 vs. 39.9 mm; p < 0.001) but comparable RENAL scores (6.8 vs. 6.7; p = 0.37). The complication rate was higher in the OPN group (28.6 vs. 18 %; p < 0.001). The OPN patients had greater estimated blood loss (359.5 vs. 275 ml; p < 0.001) and more frequent hemorrhagic complications (12.1 vs. 6.9 %; p < 0.001). The robotic approach was associated with a shorter warm ischemia time (WIT 15.7 vs. 18.6 min; p < 0.001) and a shorter hospital of stay (4.7 vs. 10.1 days; p < 0.001). In the propensity score-weighted analysis, the inverse probability of treatment weighting adjusted odds ratio for the risk of complication after OPN versus RPN was 2.11 (95 % confidence interval, 1.53-2.91; p < 0.001). After a median postoperative follow-up period of 13 months for OPN and 39 months for RPN (p < 0.001), CSS and RFS were similar in the two groups. In the multivariate analysis, RPN showed an impact on the occurrence of a complication but had no effect on WIT or RFS.
In this study, RPN was less morbid than OPN, with lower complications, less blood loss, and a shorter hospital of stay. The intermediate-term oncologic outcomes were similar in the two groups.
Annals of surgical oncology. 2016 Jul 13 [Epub ahead of print]
Benoit Peyronnet, Thomas Seisen, Emmanuel Oger, Christophe Vaessen, Yohann Grassano, Thibaut Benoit, Julie Carrouget, Benjamin Pradère, Zineddine Khene, Anthony Giwerc, Romain Mathieu, Jean-Baptiste Beauval, François-Xavier Nouhaud, Pierre Bigot, Nicolas Doumerc, Jean-Christophe Bernhard, Arnaud Mejean, Jean-Jacques Patard, Sharokh Shariat, Morgan Roupret, Karim Bensalah, French Comittee of Urologic Oncology (CCAFU)
Department of Urology, Hopital Pontchaillou, CHU Rennes, Rennes, France. ., Department of Urology, Hopital Pitié-Salpétrière, Paris, France., Department of Statistics, CHU Rennes, Rennes, France., Department of Urology, Hopital Pitié-Salpétrière, Paris, France., Department of Urology, CHU Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France., Department of Urology, CHU Toulouse, Toulouse, France., Department of Urology, CHU Angers, Angers, France., Department of Urology, Hopital Pontchaillou, CHU Rennes, Rennes, France., Department of Urology, Hopital Pontchaillou, CHU Rennes, Rennes, France., Department of Urology, CHU Rouen, Rouen, France., Department of Urology, Hopital Pontchaillou, CHU Rennes, Rennes, France., Department of Urology, CHU Toulouse, Toulouse, France., Department of Urology, CHU Rouen, Rouen, France., Department of Urology, CHU Angers, Angers, France., Department of Urology, CHU Toulouse, Toulouse, France., Department of Urology, CHU Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France., Department of Urology, Hopital Européen Georges-Pompidou, Paris, France., Department of Urology, CHU Kremlin-Bicètre, Kremlin-Bicètre, France., Department of Urology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria., Department of Urology, Hopital Pitié-Salpétrière, Paris, France., Department of Urology, Hopital Pontchaillou, CHU Rennes, Rennes, France.