A comparison of perioperative outcomes of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review.

Journal: Journal of robotic surgery
Published Date:

Abstract

RAPN can be carried out via a transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach. The choice between the two approaches is open to debate and usually based on surgeon preference. The perioperative outcomes of transperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy versus retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy were compared. A systematic review of the literature was performed up to May 2020, using PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus and Ovid databases. Articles were selected according to a search strategy based on PRISMA criteria. Only studies comparing TRAPN with RRAPN were eligible for inclusion. Eleven studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Baseline demographics (age, BMI, ASA, tumour size, and RENAL nephrometry score), intraoperative data (operative time, estimated blood loss, and warm ischaemia time) and postoperative outcomes (major complications according to Clavien-Dindo, length of hospital stay (LOS) and positive surgical margin rate) were recorded. A total of 3139 patients were included (2052 TRAPN vs. 1087 RRAPN). There was no significant difference in demographic variables (age, BMI), tumour size (p = 0.06) nor the nephrometry score (p = 0.20) between the two groups. Operative time (p = 0.02), estimated blood loss (p < 0.00001) and LOS (p < 0.00001) were significantly lower in the RRAPN group. No differences were found in major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo > 3; p = 0.37), warm ischaemia time (p = 0.37) or positive surgical margins (p = 0.13). Future researchers must attempt to achieve adequately powered, expertise based, multi-surgeon and multi-centric studies comparing TRAPN and RRAPN. RRAPN gives similar outcomes to TRAPN. RRAPN is associated with reduced operative time and LOS. Ideally, surgeons should be familiar and competent in both RAPN approaches and adopt a risk-stratified and patient-centred individualised approach, dependent on the tumour and patient characteristics. RAPN is feasible via two approaches. The retroperitoneal approach seems to be associated with a shorter operation time and hospital stay.

Authors

  • Ali Bourgi
    Department of Urology, University Hospital of Tours, 2 Boulevard Tonnellé, Tours, Loire Valley, France. alibourgi@gmail.com.
  • Elias Ayoub
    Department of Urology, chu Poitiers, Poitiers, France.
  • Sleiman Merhej
    Department of Urology, Saint Joseph University, Damascus Road, PO-BOX: 17-5208, Beirut, Lebanon.
  • Josee Souky
    Department of Urology, University Hospital of Tours, 2 Boulevard Tonnellé, Tours, Loire Valley, France.
  • Morgan Rouprêt
    Centre de Recherche sur les Pathologies Prostatiques, Paris, France; GRC No. 5 Predictive Onco-Urology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France.
  • Franck Bruyere
    Department of Urology, University of Tours, Tours, France.