开放式肾部分切除术与机器人肾部分切除术的疗效:20 年单一机构的经验。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Journal of Robotic Surgery Pub Date : 2024-08-08 DOI:10.1007/s11701-024-02027-0
Harrison Love, Courtney Yong, James E Slaven, Ashorne K Mahenthiran, Chinade Roper, Morgan Black, William Zhang, Elise Patrick, Kelly DeMichael, Troy Wesson, Sean O'Brien, Rowan Farrell, Thomas Gardner, Timothy A Masterson, Ronald S Boris, Chandru P Sundaram
{"title":"开放式肾部分切除术与机器人肾部分切除术的疗效:20 年单一机构的经验。","authors":"Harrison Love, Courtney Yong, James E Slaven, Ashorne K Mahenthiran, Chinade Roper, Morgan Black, William Zhang, Elise Patrick, Kelly DeMichael, Troy Wesson, Sean O'Brien, Rowan Farrell, Thomas Gardner, Timothy A Masterson, Ronald S Boris, Chandru P Sundaram","doi":"10.1007/s11701-024-02027-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Robotic assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) has emerged in urologic practice for the management of appropriately sized renal masses. We provide a 20-year comparison of the outcomes of open partial nephrectomy (OPN) versus RPN for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at our institution. An IRB-approved retrospective review was conducted of RCC patients at a single institution from 2000 to 2022 who underwent RPN or OPN. In addition to demographics, procedural details including ischemia and operative time were collected. Oncologic outcomes were evaluated through Kaplan-Meier statistical analysis to determine recurrence-free survival (RFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) analysis. 849 patients underwent RPN while 385 underwent OPN. 61% were male with average age of 58.8 ± 12.8 years. Operative time was shorter in the open group (184 vs 200 min, p = 0.002), as was ischemia time (16 vs 19 min, p = 0.047). However, after 2012, RPN became more common than OPN with improving ischemia time. RPN patients had significantly improved RFS (HR 0.45, p = 0.0004) and OS (HR 0.51, p = 0.0016) when controlled for T-stage and margin status. More > pT1 masses were managed with OPN than RPN (11.2 vs 5.4%, p < 0.0001). At our institution, RPN had an increasing incidence with reduced ischemia time compared to OPN over the last 10 years. While higher stage renal masses were more often managed with OPN, selective use of RPN does offer improved oncologic outcomes. Further investigation is needed to evaluate optimization of the selection of RPN versus OPN in the nephron-sparing management of renal masses.</p>","PeriodicalId":47616,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Robotic Surgery","volume":"18 1","pages":"315"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes of open versus robotic partial nephrectomy: a 20-year single institution experience.\",\"authors\":\"Harrison Love, Courtney Yong, James E Slaven, Ashorne K Mahenthiran, Chinade Roper, Morgan Black, William Zhang, Elise Patrick, Kelly DeMichael, Troy Wesson, Sean O'Brien, Rowan Farrell, Thomas Gardner, Timothy A Masterson, Ronald S Boris, Chandru P Sundaram\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11701-024-02027-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Robotic assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) has emerged in urologic practice for the management of appropriately sized renal masses. We provide a 20-year comparison of the outcomes of open partial nephrectomy (OPN) versus RPN for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at our institution. An IRB-approved retrospective review was conducted of RCC patients at a single institution from 2000 to 2022 who underwent RPN or OPN. In addition to demographics, procedural details including ischemia and operative time were collected. Oncologic outcomes were evaluated through Kaplan-Meier statistical analysis to determine recurrence-free survival (RFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) analysis. 849 patients underwent RPN while 385 underwent OPN. 61% were male with average age of 58.8 ± 12.8 years. Operative time was shorter in the open group (184 vs 200 min, p = 0.002), as was ischemia time (16 vs 19 min, p = 0.047). However, after 2012, RPN became more common than OPN with improving ischemia time. RPN patients had significantly improved RFS (HR 0.45, p = 0.0004) and OS (HR 0.51, p = 0.0016) when controlled for T-stage and margin status. More > pT1 masses were managed with OPN than RPN (11.2 vs 5.4%, p < 0.0001). At our institution, RPN had an increasing incidence with reduced ischemia time compared to OPN over the last 10 years. While higher stage renal masses were more often managed with OPN, selective use of RPN does offer improved oncologic outcomes. Further investigation is needed to evaluate optimization of the selection of RPN versus OPN in the nephron-sparing management of renal masses.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47616,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Robotic Surgery\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"315\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Robotic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-02027-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Robotic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-02027-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

机器人辅助肾部分切除术(RPN)已在泌尿外科用于治疗适当大小的肾肿块。我们提供了本院开放式肾部分切除术(OPN)与机器人辅助肾部分切除术(RPN)治疗肾细胞癌(RCC)20 年来的疗效对比。我们对 2000 年至 2022 年在一家医疗机构接受 RPN 或 OPN 治疗的 RCC 患者进行了一项经 IRB 批准的回顾性研究。除人口统计学数据外,还收集了包括缺血和手术时间在内的手术细节。通过Kaplan-Meier统计分析评估肿瘤结果,以确定无复发生存期(RFS)、癌症特异性生存期(CSS)和总生存期(OS)分析。849名患者接受了RPN治疗,385名患者接受了OPN治疗。61%的患者为男性,平均年龄(58.8 ± 12.8)岁。开放手术组的手术时间较短(184 分钟对 200 分钟,P = 0.002),缺血时间也较短(16 分钟对 19 分钟,P = 0.047)。然而,2012 年后,随着缺血时间的延长,RPN 比 OPN 更为常见。在控制T分期和边缘状态的情况下,RPN患者的RFS(HR 0.45,p = 0.0004)和OS(HR 0.51,p = 0.0016)明显改善。与RPN相比,更多> pT1肿块患者接受了OPN治疗(11.2% vs 5.4%,P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Outcomes of open versus robotic partial nephrectomy: a 20-year single institution experience.

Robotic assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) has emerged in urologic practice for the management of appropriately sized renal masses. We provide a 20-year comparison of the outcomes of open partial nephrectomy (OPN) versus RPN for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at our institution. An IRB-approved retrospective review was conducted of RCC patients at a single institution from 2000 to 2022 who underwent RPN or OPN. In addition to demographics, procedural details including ischemia and operative time were collected. Oncologic outcomes were evaluated through Kaplan-Meier statistical analysis to determine recurrence-free survival (RFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) analysis. 849 patients underwent RPN while 385 underwent OPN. 61% were male with average age of 58.8 ± 12.8 years. Operative time was shorter in the open group (184 vs 200 min, p = 0.002), as was ischemia time (16 vs 19 min, p = 0.047). However, after 2012, RPN became more common than OPN with improving ischemia time. RPN patients had significantly improved RFS (HR 0.45, p = 0.0004) and OS (HR 0.51, p = 0.0016) when controlled for T-stage and margin status. More > pT1 masses were managed with OPN than RPN (11.2 vs 5.4%, p < 0.0001). At our institution, RPN had an increasing incidence with reduced ischemia time compared to OPN over the last 10 years. While higher stage renal masses were more often managed with OPN, selective use of RPN does offer improved oncologic outcomes. Further investigation is needed to evaluate optimization of the selection of RPN versus OPN in the nephron-sparing management of renal masses.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
8.70%
发文量
145
期刊介绍: The aim of the Journal of Robotic Surgery is to become the leading worldwide journal for publication of articles related to robotic surgery, encompassing surgical simulation and integrated imaging techniques. The journal provides a centralized, focused resource for physicians wishing to publish their experience or those wishing to avail themselves of the most up-to-date findings.The journal reports on advance in a wide range of surgical specialties including adult and pediatric urology, general surgery, cardiac surgery, gynecology, ENT, orthopedics and neurosurgery.The use of robotics in surgery is broad-based and will undoubtedly expand over the next decade as new technical innovations and techniques increase the applicability of its use. The journal intends to capture this trend as it develops.
期刊最新文献
A review of enhanced recovery after surgery concept in perioperative radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Patient reported health related quality of life outcomes after viable cryopreserved umbilical tissue placement directly over spared neurovascular bundles after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. Comparative perioperative outcomes of intravenous indocyanine green during robot-assisted cystectomy: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia and bothersome LUTS-a retrospective cohort study. Correction: Body mass index influence on short-term perioperative results in robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
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:481959085
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