Randomised controlled feasibility trial of retroperitoneal vs transperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: the ROPARN study

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY BJU International Pub Date : 2025-01-22 DOI:10.1111/bju.16653
Sebastian Kälble, Simon U. Engelmann, Hannah Schrutz, Florian Zeman, Emily Rinderknecht, Maximilian Haas, Christoph Pickl, Christopher Goßler, Yushan Yang, Stefan Denzinger, Maximilian Burger, Johannes Bründl, Roman Mayr
{"title":"Randomised controlled feasibility trial of retroperitoneal vs transperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: the ROPARN study","authors":"Sebastian Kälble,&nbsp;Simon U. Engelmann,&nbsp;Hannah Schrutz,&nbsp;Florian Zeman,&nbsp;Emily Rinderknecht,&nbsp;Maximilian Haas,&nbsp;Christoph Pickl,&nbsp;Christopher Goßler,&nbsp;Yushan Yang,&nbsp;Stefan Denzinger,&nbsp;Maximilian Burger,&nbsp;Johannes Bründl,&nbsp;Roman Mayr","doi":"10.1111/bju.16653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To assess the feasibility of trial recruitment and confirm that retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RRPN) has the same oncological efficacy as transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (TRPN), with time advantages and less peri-operative morbidity, in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patients and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The study was designed as a single-centre, open-label, feasibility RCT. Patients with suspected localised renal cell carcinoma referred for robotic partial nephrectomy were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either TRPN or RRPN. The primary outcomes were trial feasibility, postoperative mobility and pain perception. Secondary outcomes were intra-operative times, assessment of complications, and comparison of positive surgical margin (PSM) rates. The data on all randomised patients who underwent surgery were analysed descriptively.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Sixty-one patients underwent TRPN or RRPN (31 vs 30). Postoperative mobility within 24 h after surgery (RRPN: 77 vs TRPN: 71%; <i>P</i> = 0.613), median postoperative pain, assessed using a numeric rating scale (RRPN: 1.5 vs TRPN: 1.8; <i>P</i> = 0.509), and full bowel canalisation within 3 days (RRPN: 100% vs TRPN: 90%; <i>P</i> = 0.315) were more favourable in the RRPN group, but the difference was not statistically significant. In comparison to TRPN, RRPN was associated with shorter operating time (81 vs 105 min; <i>P</i> = 0.005), shorter time on the console (49 vs 73 min; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001) and shorter time from console to renal artery preparation (7.5 vs 18 min; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). TRPN required a shorter time from skin incision to console (16 vs 12 min; <i>P</i> = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in tumour complexity, ischaemia time, PSM rate, blood loss or complications between the two groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>We present the first data from an RCT comparing RRPN with TRPN. RRPN showed significant time benefits while being a safe alternative to TRPN, with a similar PSM rate. There was less postoperative morbidity in the RRPN group, although this was not statistically significant. These results underline that dorsolateral renal tumours should be preferably resected by RRPN. Further multicentre RCTs are necessary to confirm these results.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":8985,"journal":{"name":"BJU International","volume":"135 6","pages":"977-986"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bju.16653","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJU International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bju.16653","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the feasibility of trial recruitment and confirm that retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RRPN) has the same oncological efficacy as transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (TRPN), with time advantages and less peri-operative morbidity, in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

Patients and Methods

The study was designed as a single-centre, open-label, feasibility RCT. Patients with suspected localised renal cell carcinoma referred for robotic partial nephrectomy were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either TRPN or RRPN. The primary outcomes were trial feasibility, postoperative mobility and pain perception. Secondary outcomes were intra-operative times, assessment of complications, and comparison of positive surgical margin (PSM) rates. The data on all randomised patients who underwent surgery were analysed descriptively.

Results

Sixty-one patients underwent TRPN or RRPN (31 vs 30). Postoperative mobility within 24 h after surgery (RRPN: 77 vs TRPN: 71%; P = 0.613), median postoperative pain, assessed using a numeric rating scale (RRPN: 1.5 vs TRPN: 1.8; P = 0.509), and full bowel canalisation within 3 days (RRPN: 100% vs TRPN: 90%; P = 0.315) were more favourable in the RRPN group, but the difference was not statistically significant. In comparison to TRPN, RRPN was associated with shorter operating time (81 vs 105 min; P = 0.005), shorter time on the console (49 vs 73 min; P < 0.001) and shorter time from console to renal artery preparation (7.5 vs 18 min; P < 0.001). TRPN required a shorter time from skin incision to console (16 vs 12 min; P = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in tumour complexity, ischaemia time, PSM rate, blood loss or complications between the two groups.

Conclusion

We present the first data from an RCT comparing RRPN with TRPN. RRPN showed significant time benefits while being a safe alternative to TRPN, with a similar PSM rate. There was less postoperative morbidity in the RRPN group, although this was not statistically significant. These results underline that dorsolateral renal tumours should be preferably resected by RRPN. Further multicentre RCTs are necessary to confirm these results.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
后腹膜与经腹膜机器人辅助部分肾切除术的随机对照可行性试验:ROPARN研究
在一项随机对照试验(RCT)中,评估试验招募的可行性,并证实腹膜后机器人部分肾切除术(RRPN)与经腹膜机器人部分肾切除术(TRPN)具有相同的肿瘤疗效,具有时间优势和更少的围手术期发病率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BJU International
BJU International 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
4.40%
发文量
262
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: BJUI is one of the most highly respected medical journals in the world, with a truly international range of published papers and appeal. Every issue gives invaluable practical information in the form of original articles, reviews, comments, surgical education articles, and translational science articles in the field of urology. BJUI employs topical sections, and is in full colour, making it easier to browse or search for something specific.
期刊最新文献
Response to comment on 'Drug-releasing intravesical floating technology for sequential gemcitabine and docetaxel in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer'. Digital Uromonitor® outperforms quantitative polymerase chain reaction Uromonitor and cytology for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer surveillance: results from the ‘External Validation of Uromonitor as a Biomarker for Optimization of NMIBC Management by the Club Urológico Español de Tratamiento Oncológico Group’ (EVALUATION-CUETO) study Comment on 'Drug-releasing intravesical floating technology for sequential gemcitabine and docetaxel in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer'. The 'Co-Qual': Real-time assessment of prostate biopsy core quality using fluorescence confocal microscopy. Reducing complexity in International Bladder Cancer Group intermediate-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer stratification: a three-factor approach.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1