Podium Abstract
Eposter Presentation
 
Accept format: PDF. The file size should not be more than 5MB
 
Accept format: PNG/JPG/WEBP. The file size should not be more than 2MB
 
Submitted
Abstract
A Comparative Analysis of Robotic vs Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for a Complex Renal Mass (R.E.N.A.L. Score ≥ 10); Single surgeon study
Podium Abstract
Clinical Research
Oncology: Kidney (non-UTUC)
Author's Information
3
No more than 10 authors can be listed (as per the Good Publication Practice (GPP) Guidelines).
Please ensure the authors are listed in the right order.
Australia
Sepehr Miran Sepehr.miran@gmail.com Monash University Department of Surgery Melbourne Australia * Alfred Health Department of Urology Melbourne Australia
Anne Hong a.hong3@gmail.com University of Melbourne Department of Surgery Melbourne Australia -
Homayoun Zargar admin@homizargar.com.au University of Melbourne Department of Surgery Melbourne Australia - Western Health Department of Urology Melbourne Australia Western Clinical Trials Department of Urology Melbourne Australia
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Abstract Content
This study retrospectively reviews prospectively collected data to compare perioperative and postoperative outcomes in patients with a complex renal mass (R.E.N.A.L. score≥10) undergoing robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) or Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). In addition, we asses achievement of the defined trifecta and “optimal outcome”.
From 2017 to 2024, a total of 56 patients underwent partial nephrectomy performed by a single surgeon (39 RPN, 17 LPN). Trifecta was defined as achieving three criteria: warm ischemia time greater than 25 minutes, negative surgical margins, and absence of postoperative complications. “Optimal outcome” was defined as achieving the trifecta in addition to a short-term (3-month) estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) preservation of greater than 90%. Postoperative complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Statistical analyses were conducted using GraphPad Prism (version 10.4).
Of the 56 patients, 39 underwent RPN, and 17 underwent LPN. The groups had comparable median age (65 vs. 58 years), tumor size (median 43.00 mm vs. 60.00 mm), R.E.N.A.L. scores (median 10.0 vs. 10.0). WIT was 0 minutes in 11 RPN and 6 LPN cases, with no significant difference in mean WIT (13.74 vs. 12.00 minutes, p = 0.6506). Negative surgical margin rates (86.84% vs. 92.31%, p >0.9999), complication rates (6.25% vs. 9.09%, p = 0.6463), and eGFR preservation > 90% (71.05% vs. 66.67%, p = 0.7510) were comparable between groups. The rates of achieving trifecta (69.23% RPN vs. 76.47% LPN, p=0.7510) and optimal outcome (55.00% RPN vs. 52.94% LPN, p >0.9999) showed no significant difference between the groups.
There was no statistically significant difference in the achievement of Trifecta or Optimal outcome rates between RPN and LPN. Both studies showed comparable perioperative and postoperative outcomes when performed by an experienced surgeon. The findings suggest that RPN and LPN are equally safe and effective in the management of complex renal masses with a R.E.N.A.L. score≥10.
Uro-oncology, Partial nephrectomy, Renal cell carcinoma, Robotic surgery
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2058
 
Presentation Details
Free Paper Podium(20): Oncology RCC (B)
Aug. 16 (Sat.)
16:24 - 16:30
10