Learning Curves for Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy

被引:18
作者
Curtiss, Kevin M. [1 ]
Ball, Mark W. [1 ]
Gorin, Michael A. [1 ]
Harris, Kelly T. [1 ]
Pierorazio, Phillip M. [1 ]
Allaf, Mohamad E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Med, James Buchan Brady Urol Inst, Dept Urol, Baltimore, MD 21287 USA
关键词
INVASIVE PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY; RENAL-CELL CARCINOMA; TUMORS; OUTCOMES; COMPLICATIONS; EXPERIENCE; ISCHEMIA; TRENDS; T1;
D O I
10.1089/end.2014.0303
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives: To evaluate the learning curve of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) between two surgeons at a single institution. Methods: A prospectively maintained, Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved kidney surgery database was reviewed retrospectively and the first 116 consecutive LPNs performed by one surgeon (Hyung Kim) and 116 consecutive RPNs performed by a second surgeon (Thomas Schwaab) were identified. The learning curve was evaluated by examining the operative times, warm ischemia times (WITs), estimated blood loss, the postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and intra- and postoperative complications in the quartiles of 29 patients. The LPNs performed by Hyung Kim were done following completion of a minimally invasive fellowship. Thomas Schwaab had minimal experience with LPN and no fellowship training before starting RAPN. Results: The RAPN and LPN groups had similar patient and tumor characteristics. The RAPN group had a higher preoperative eGFR (74.1 +/- 22.04 vs. 80.95 +/- 21.25 mL/minutes, p=0.015) and a worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (ECOG 1+ in 12% vs. 2.6%, p<0.001) compared with the LPN group. Rates of intraoperative (p=0.203) and postoperative (p=0.193) complications were similar. In the RAPN group, operating room (OR) time (161 +/- 51 vs. 203 +/- 55 minutes, p<0.001) and WIT (17.7 +/- 14.8 vs. 21.8 +/- 9.1 minutes, p<0.001) were shorter. Postoperative stay was longer in the RAPN group (2.4 +/- 2.2 vs. 1.67 +/- 1.1 days, p<0.001). The percentage decrease in postoperative eGFR was lower in the RAPN group versus the LPN (9.6% vs. 10%). The learning curves differed for log tumor size, log WIT, and postoperative complications. Conclusions: The variables of the learning curve for RAPN can be obtained earlier than the same variables for LPN. RAPN had a shorter OR time and WITs. The shorter WITs, earlier in the series, led to consistently lower fluctuations in GFR and preservation of the renal function. The learning curves for each procedure need to be re-evaluated at longer intervals to ensure their accuracy.
引用
收藏
页码:293 / 296
页数:4
相关论文
共 21 条
  • [1] Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for completely endophytic renal masses: a single institution experience
    Autorino, Riccardo
    Khalifeh, Ali
    Laydner, Humberto
    Samarasekera, Dinesh
    Rizkala, Emad
    Eyraud, Remi
    Stein, Robert J.
    Haber, Georges-Pascal
    Kaouk, Jihad H.
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2014, 113 (05) : 762 - 768
  • [2] Robot Assisted Partial Nephrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for Renal Tumors: A Multi-Institutional Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes
    Benway, Brian M.
    Bhayani, Sam B.
    Rogers, Craig G.
    Dulabon, Lori M.
    Patel, Manish N.
    Lipkin, Michael
    Wang, Agnes J.
    Stifelman, Michael D.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2009, 182 (03) : 866 - 872
  • [3] Robotic Partial Nephrectomy with Sliding-Clip Renorrhaphy: Technique and Outcomes
    Benway, Brian M.
    Wang, Agnes J.
    Cabello, Jose M.
    Bhayani, Sam B.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2009, 55 (03) : 592 - 599
  • [4] Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for Completely Intraparenchymal Tumors
    Chung, Benjamin I.
    Lee, Una J.
    Kamoi, Kazumi
    Canes, David A.
    Aron, Monish
    Gill, Inderbir S.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2011, 186 (06) : 2182 - 2187
  • [5] DeLong JM, 2010, CAN J UROL, V17, P5207
  • [6] Classification of surgical complications - A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey
    Dindo, D
    Demartines, N
    Clavien, PA
    [J]. ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2004, 240 (02) : 205 - 213
  • [7] Practice Patterns and Outcomes of Open and Minimally Invasive Partial Nephrectomy Since the Introduction of Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: Results from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample
    Ghani, Khurshid R.
    Sukumar, Shyam
    Sammon, Jesse D.
    Rogers, Craig G.
    Quoc-Dien Trinh
    Menon, Mani
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2014, 191 (04) : 907 - 912
  • [8] Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors
    Gill, Inderbir S.
    Kavoussi, Louis R.
    Lane, Brian R.
    Blute, Michael L.
    Babineau, Denise
    Colombo, J. Roberto, Jr.
    Frank, Igor
    Permpongkosol, Sompol
    Weight, Christopher J.
    Kaouk, Jihad H.
    Kattan, Michael W.
    Novick, Andrew C.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2007, 178 (01) : 41 - 46
  • [9] Outcomes and Predictors of Clinical T1 to Pathological T3a Tumor Up-Staging after Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: A Multi- Institutional Analysis
    Gorin, Michael A.
    Ball, Mark W.
    Pierorazio, Phillip M.
    Tanagho, Youssef S.
    Bhayani, Sam B.
    Kaouk, Jihad H.
    Rogers, Craig G.
    Stifelman, Michael D.
    Khalifeh, Ali
    Kumar, Ramesh
    Sivarajan, Ganesh
    Allaf, Mohamad E.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2013, 190 (05) : 1907 - 1911
  • [10] National utilization trends of partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: A case of underutilization?
    Hollenbeck, BK
    Taub, DA
    Miller, DC
    Dunn, RL
    Wei, JT
    [J]. UROLOGY, 2006, 67 (02) : 254 - 259