Abstract
Partial nephrectomy (PN), whether using open or robotic approach, is an oncologically safe alternative for radical nephrectomy (RN) in appropriately selected patients with renal cell cancer (RCC). As urologists become increasingly facile with the robotic platform, robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) will be increasingly performed in patients with complex renal tumors. These include tumors that are completely endophytic or hilar in location, ≥cT1b, tumors with a high RENAL nephrometry score, multiple tumors, or tumors in patients with solitary kidney or significant chronic kidney disease (CKD). While the “trifecta” of negative surgical margins, minimal renal functional decline and no urologic complications remains the ideal goal for any PN, its attainment may pose unique surgical challenges in patients with complex renal tumors. In this chapter, we describe some of the approaches for such patients, tailored to the specific clinical presentation. General considerations to optimize outcomes in such cases include additional assistant ports, judicious use of the 4th robotic arm, and use of pre-clamp check lists. Specific technical maneuvers include use of intraoperative ultrasound probes (for endophytic tumors), tumor enucleation/enucleoresection and modified renorrhaphy techniques (for hilar tumors), cutting wide and deep without excess traction (in cases of cystic/≥cT1b tumors), and minimizing warm ischemia (‘on-demand’ ischemia and early unclamping of the main renal artery, selective clamping of tumor specific arteries, or regional hypothermia) in patients with multiple renal tumors, solitary kidney or pre-existing CKD.
Access provided by CONRICYT-eBooks. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy
- Complex tumors
- Renal cell cancer
- Hilar tumors
- Endophytic tumors
- cT1b tumors
Introduction
Surgical extirpation of the renal cell cancer (RCC), either by a partial (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN), has been the mainstay of treatment of localized disease [1,2,3]. According to current guidelines, partial nephrectomy is the standard treatment for clinical T1a renal tumors and the preferred treatment for clinical T1b renal tumors [1, 2]. A growing evidence base suggests that while PN offers equivalent cancer control outcomes as RN [4], it is associated with significantly lesser risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) [5], which may translate into lower cardiovascular events, hospitalizations and all-cause mortality [6,7,8]. With the advent of minimally invasive surgery, robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) has become an increasingly common approach for performing PN [9].
An ideal PN is characterized by the “trifecta” of negative surgical margins, minimal renal functional (RF) decline and no urologic complications, and these outcomes are intrinsically determined by tumor specific, patient specific and surgeon specific factors (Fig. 41.1). As urologists become increasingly facile with the robotic platform, they are likely to confront more complex tumors for RAPN. These include tumors that are completely endophytic or hilar in location, ≥cT1b, tumors with a high RENAL nephrometry score, multiple tumors, or tumors in patients with solitary kidney or significant CKD. While reports from centers of excellence have described the feasibility of performing RAPN in such patients [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20], RAPN in these conditions remains challenging.
In this chapter, we highlight some of the technical maneuvers and summarize the contemporary outcomes of patients undergoing RAPN for complex renal tumors.
Port Placement
RAPN for complex tumors may require additional port placement to improve access to the tumor (Fig. 41.2). An additional assistant port may be used to introduce a Satinsky clamp for ‘en-bloc’ clamping of the renal hilum in cases such as hilar tumors in which visibility or access to the hilum could be compromised. For right sided tumors, passive liver retraction may be performed using a locking grasper through a 5-mm sub-xiphoid port placed under the liver and secured to the diaphragm. The 4th arm may be useful to provide additional autonomy in complex tumors or vascular anatomy, obese patients or abundant perinephric fat.
Exposure and 4th Robotic Arm
As with any oncological surgery, adequate exposure is of paramount importance in complex renal tumor surgery. The goal is wide mobilization of bowel and kidney, such that the tumor/s directly face the surgeon. This may be facilitated by use of the 4th robotic arm, extra assistant ports, or use of lap sponges.
The situations where the 4th arm and extra assistant ports may be useful include:
-
Bowel mobilization: Following peritoneal incision along the line of Toldt and medial mobilization of the bowel, the bedside assistant maintains medial countertraction on the bowel initially. The 4th arm can be used at this stage to grasp the anterior Gerota’s fascia and retract the kidney anteriorly to facilitate further bowel mobilization (Fig. 41.3a). This can be particularly useful in obese patients with abundant perinephric fat.
-
Hilar dissection and clamping: Once a window is created between the ureter and the psoas muscle and a psoas plane is developed to the lateral side wall, the 4th arm can be placed under the ureter to provide upward lift to the kidney and put the renal hilum on stretch (Fig. 41.3b). This allows the surgeon to have both arms free for hilar dissection. Robotic bulldog clamps can be placed to occlude the renal hilum by the surgeon (using the 4th arm), or by a skilled bedside assistant through the assistant ports.
-
Tumor exposure and excision: The 4th arm can also be used to mobilize and retract the kidney during dissection of the Gerota’s fascia and perinephric fat for optimal tumor exposure (Fig. 41.3c). The primary assistant port may be used to introduce the ultrasound probe, which can then be grasped by the 4thw arm and moved over the kidney/tumor surface to demarcate tumor margins and borders of resection for more endophytic tumors. Posterior, upper pole tumors require medial mobilization of the kidney for adequate tumor exposure in a transperitoneal approach. In such cases, placement of a lap sponge behind the kidney prevents the kidney from springing back into its normal anatomical position.
Preparation and Pre-clamp Time Out
It is important to have all the necessary equipment available for complex tumors for any potential occurrences while the kidney is on-clamp and tumor excision is being performed. An example of a pre-clamp checklist includes the following:
-
All sutures and hemostatic agents (Floseal, Surgicel) ready and visually confirmed
-
Adequate CO2 for insufflation
-
Clean camera and instruments, test needle drivers
-
Hydration and mannitol
-
Bulldog clamps, Satinsky clamp, GIA stapler, and open tray available
-
Robotic/laparoscopic ultrasound probe, indocyanine green (ICG) for near-infrared fluorescence imaging (NIRF)
-
No breaks around clamp time
Endophytic Tumors
Renal tumors that are mostly (>50%) or entirely endophytic pose additional surgical challenges for PN (Fig. 41.4). These cases are associated with poor recognition of mass extension to the collecting system, higher risk of inadvertent vascular or pelvicalyceal system injury, potential for positive surgical margin, difficulty in performing renorrhaphy as well as higher perioperative complication rates from bleeding or urine leak. Use of intraoperative ultrasound can facilitate surgery for endophytic tumors. Important aims of surgery in these cases include wide and deep resection (up to the level of sinus fat or collecting system) based on preoperative imaging and/or intraoperative ultrasound to help ensure an adequate tumor margin.
Intraoperative ultrasound is used to delineate tumor margins and boundaries of resection, to screen for additional small lesions, and assist in obtaining negative resection margins during RAPN. Both robotic and laparoscopic probes can be used for this purpose. Robotic ultrasound probes offer comparable perioperative outcomes and surgical margin rates, with the added advantage of surgeon autonomy [21]. The ultrasound probe is connected to the da Vinci system, allowing the ultrasound view to be displayed on the console screen using the TilePro® system (Fig. 41.5a). Once the tumor margins are identified, the renal capsule can be scored circumferentially (Fig. 41.5b) with an adequate margin around the tumor to serve as a guide for resection.
Hilar Tumors
Similar to endophytic tumors, hilar tumors necessitate careful surgical planning owing to their proximity to the renal vessels and the pelvicalyceal system (Fig. 41.6). The feasibility of RAPN in the setting of hilar tumors has been previously demonstrated [10, 13, 17,18,19]. It is essential to dissect distal arterial branches supplying the tumor and the sinus plane to minimize inadvertent vascular and/or collecting system injury. Tumor enucleation and enucleoresection techniques (Fig. 41.7a, b) have been proposed to protect critical hilar structures [22, 23]. During enucleative PN, tumor excision is performed immediately adjacent to the tumor edge. The radially oriented renal parenchyma and pyramids lend themselves favorably to developing a cleavage plane for enucleation/enucleoresection by atraumatic blunt separation rather than sharp cutting. Oncologically, the tumor-parenchyma interface is often marked by a ‘pseudocapsule’ (consisting of inflammatory and sclerotic tissue at the tumor margin), which forms a surgically favorable plane for enucleative PN. Even when there is pseudocapsular penetration into normal renal parenchyma, a thin rim of renal tissue is generally sufficient for a negative surgical margin when tumor enucleation is performed [1, 2, 23]. Functionally, enucleation helps preserve healthy parenchyma, which is an important determinant of maintaining renal function post-RAPN [24,25,26,27].
Following resection of hilar tumors, a careful renorrhaphy is key to minimize vascular and collecting system injury. Kaouk and colleagues [28] proposed a technique of V-hilar suture renorrhaphy for complex hilar tumors (Fig. 41.8). This was performed by using inner layer sutures to reshape the renal parenchymal defect, followed by a continuous horizontal mattress suture to reapproximate the renal capsule.
Cystic/≥cT1b Tumors
Oncological challenges associated with a cystic and ≥cT1b (>4 cm; Fig. 41.9) tumors include the risk of positive surgical margin, pathological upstaging, and, in some cases, greater likelihood of postoperative complications [29]. Important technical points to keep in mind during RAPN in such patients include the need for wider surgical margins (given their high likelihood of pathological upstaging [11] and pseudocapsular invasion [23]) and avoiding excess traction (to minimize the potential for tumor spillage). The first RAPN series comparing outcomes of renal tumors >4 cm to those ≤4 cm was reported by Patel et al. [14]. While patients with larger tumors had longer WIT (25 vs. 20 min, p = 0.01), there were no significant differences in estimated blood loss, total operative time, hospital stay, complication rates, and change in estimated glomerular filtration rate between the two groups. Similar results were highlighted in a recent meta-analysis [30] and by Tiu et al. in patients undergoing robotic laparoendoscopic single-site PN, with no increase in the rates of adverse outcomes [31]. Nonetheless, these reports have been confined to centers of excellence with high surgical volume, and it is reasonable to contemplate radical nephrectomy in renal tumors >4 cm that are either likely to be technically challenging or associated with a healthy contralateral kidney.
Renal Tumors in Patients with Pre-existing CKD, Solitary Kidney or Multiple Tumors: Minimizing Ischemia Time
Renal functional (RF) preservation assumes key importance in patients with renal tumors and either pre-existing renal compromise (such as CKD stage 3 [eGFR <60 ml/min/m2] or greater [12]) or greater likelihood of postoperative RF decline (solitary kidney [32] or multiple tumors). In such a setting, volume preservation and minimizing/attenuating the impact of warm ischemia time are (partially) modifiable, surgeon specific factors to optimize postoperative RF. Figure 41.10 is a schematic representation of factors determining postoperative RF in patients undergoing PN.
The definition of the ideal ischemia time threshold during PN is still debated [25, 33, 34]. However, given that duration and type of ischemia are perhaps the only surgeon-specific, directly modifiable risk factors [34], strategies to mitigate the impact and/or duration of warm ischemia have evolved over the last decade [35]. These include “on-demand” ischemia, early unclamping, selective clamping, off-clamp PN, and regional hypothermia.
One approach to decreasing the duration of WIT is “on-demand ischemia”: tumor excision is started with cold scissors and the renal pedicle is clamped only when bleeding obscures the surgical field and visualization of tumor [36]. While this approach was initially described for smaller tumors (median size 2.3 cm), it may have utility even for larger tumors that would otherwise necessitate a greater duration of on-clamp resection. Similar to this approach of decreasing global ischemia time, Baumert et al. suggested unclamping of the renal artery immediately following the initial central running suture or inner-layer renorrhaphy (“early” unclamping [37]). The second hemostatic running suture (usually with 2-0 Vicryl) is then performed off-clamp (Fig. 41.11). In case of on-going bleeding from the tumor bed, additional hemostatic sutures and hemostatic agents may be considered. Peyronnet and colleagues [38] showed that despite larger (mean 3.6 vs. 3.2 cm) and more complex tumors (mean RENAL score 6.9 vs 6.1), patients undergoing early unclamping had shorter WIT (16.7 vs. 22.3 min), higher blood loss (369.5 vs. 240 ml) and no statistically significant difference in transfusion rates. Similar reductions in WIT were noted by other groups (from 31.1 to 13.9 min [39] and 28 to 18.5 min [40]).
Selective clamping of the segmental artery(ies) supplying the tumor (in an effort to spare global renal ischemia) has been demonstrated in OPN [41] and LPN [42] series. After isolation of the renal artery, further dissection is performed to expose multiple segmental renal arteries, and those segmental arteries that appear to supply the tumor are clamped. The region of ischemia (which includes the tumor and surrounding renal parenchyma) can be identified by visual inspection, intraoperative ultrasound with Doppler mode, or near-infrared fluorescence (NIRF) imaging with indocyanine green (ICG) dye (Fig. 41.12). While most tumors <3.5 cm could be resected by clamping one single segmental artery, larger (cT1b) tumors may require clamping of two or three segmental arteries [43] without converting to main renal artery clamping or adversely affecting perioperative complications.
Further refinement of the selective clamp approach resulted in description of the anatomical “zero-ischemia” concept by Gill and colleagues [44, 45]: super-selective clamping of the tumor-specific tertiary or higher-order arterial branches to exclusively devascularize the tumor without compromising perfusion of the surrounding normal parenchyma. The use of selective clamping may be facilitated by NIRF imaging with intraoperative administration of ICG dye [46]. ICG is a water-soluble dye that fluoresces bright green when viewed under near-infrared light (700–1000 nm). ICG binds to albumin when intravenously injected and therefore remains primarily in the vasculature. Following application of bulldog clamps on the secondary, tertiary or quaternary level arterial branches, ICG is administered at a dose of 5–10 mg intravenously (IC-Green, Akorn, Lake Forest, IL, USA). Well-perfused renal parenchyma appears fluorescent green under NIRF imaging, while ischemic tissue and tumor do not (Fig. 41.12), verifying the correct arterial branch has been controlled. The surgeon can toggle between standard white light vision and near-infrared vision on the console view to confirm the plane of excision between tumor and parenchyma, thereby avoiding entry into the tumor.
While off clamp techniques may be a surgical tour-de-force, these techniques require use of advanced preoperative imaging to visualize the arterial anatomy (such as 3-D CT scan, with its higher doses of contrast), are associated with an increased risk of bleeding, and require a technically skilled surgeon and bedside assistant. The beneficial impact of these approaches on estimated GFR has yet to be demonstrated over long term, where volume preservation continues to be a significant prognosticator of outcomes.
Finally, a number of studies have suggested techniques for intracorporeal (regional) hypothermia to cool the kidney, in an effort to alter the oxygen demand-supply ratio [16, 47,48,49,50]. Lane et al. showed that patients with median WIT of 22 min had comparable decline in GFR 3 months after surgery to those with cold ischemia time of 45 min [34], suggesting the potential mitigating impact of the latter technique in patient with complex tumors and longer durations of expected WIT. At our center, we evolved a technique for intra-corporeal cooling and extraction (ICE) [16]: following hilar clamping, ice slush was introduced through the GelPoint™ (via modified Toomey syringes, rigid sigmoidoscopes or dedicated ice plungers) and applied all over the kidney surface (Fig. 41.13), with mean cold ischemia time of 19.6 min. This allowed renal parenchymal temperatures <16 degrees C without significantly affecting the core body temperature. Importantly, the median RENAL score in this series was 8, suggesting tumors of significant complexity may be amenable to ice slush cooling. Additionally, this approach allows immediate extraction of the excised tumor through the GelPoint, allowing gross margin assessment by pathology during the renorrhaphy.
Renal Tumors in Patients with Abdominal Surgery
Patients with extensive abdominal surgery may pose a challenge due to high risk of intra-abdominal adhesions and injury to abdominal structures during transperitoneal PN. One option in such cases is utilization of retroperitoneal approach, the technique for which has been described elsewhere in the book.
Conclusions
RAPN for complex tumors is feasible, however more challenging and associated with a greater risk of complications. Good judgement is needed to determine which surgical approach will optimize the goals of trifecta achievement.
References
Campbell SC, Novick AC, Belldegrun A, Blute ML, Chow GK, Derweesh IH, et al. Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass. J Urol. 2009;182(4):1271–9.
Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Canfield S, Dabestani S, Hofmann F, Hora M, et al. EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2014 update. Eur Urol. 2015;67(5):913–24.
Motzer RJ, Jonasch E, Agarwal N, Beard C, Bhayani S, Bolger GB, et al. Kidney cancer, version 3.2015. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2015;13(2):151–9.
Van Poppel H, Da Pozzo L, Albrecht W, Matveev V, Bono A, Borkowski A, et al. A prospective, randomised EORTC intergroup phase 3 study comparing the oncologic outcome of elective nephron-sparing surgery and radical nephrectomy for low-stage renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2011;59(4):543–52.
Scosyrev E, Messing EM, Sylvester R, Campbell S, Van Poppel H. Renal function after nephron-sparing surgery versus radical nephrectomy: results from EORTC randomized trial 30904. Eur Urol. 2014;65(2):372–7.
Go AS, Chertow GM, Fan D, McCulloch CE, Hsu CY. Chronic kidney disease and the risks of death, cardiovascular events, and hospitalization. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(13):1296–305.
Tan HJ, Norton EC, Ye Z, Hafez KS, Gore JL, Miller DC. Long-term survival following partial vs radical nephrectomy among older patients with early-stage kidney cancer. JAMA. 2012;307(15):1629–35.
Capitanio U, Terrone C, Antonelli A, Minervini A, Volpe A, Furlan M, et al. Nephron-sparing techniques independently decrease the risk of cardiovascular events relative to radical nephrectomy in patients with a T1a-T1b renal mass and normal preoperative renal function. Eur Urol. 2015;67(4):683–9.
Ghani KR, Sukumar S, Sammon JD, Rogers CG, Trinh QD, Menon M. Practice patterns and outcomes of open and minimally invasive partial nephrectomy since the introduction of robotic partial nephrectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample. J Urol. 2014;191(4):907–12.
Dulabon LM, Kaouk JH, Haber GP, Berkman DS, Rogers CG, Petros F, et al. Multi-institutional analysis of robotic partial nephrectomy for hilar versus nonhilar lesions in 446 consecutive cases. Eur Urol. 2011;59(3):325–30.
Gorin MA, Ball MW, Pierorazio PM, Tanagho YS, Bhayani SB, Kaouk JH, et al. Outcomes and predictors of clinical T1 to pathological T3a tumor up-staging after robotic partial nephrectomy: a multi-institutional analysis. J Urol. 2013;190(5):1907–11.
Kumar RK, Sammon JD, Kaczmarek BF, Khalifeh A, Gorin MA, Sivarajan G, et al. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in patients with baseline chronic kidney disease: a multi-institutional propensity score-matched analysis. Eur Urol. 2014;65(6):1205–10.
Long JA, Yakoubi R, Lee B, Guillotreau J, Autorino R, Laydner H, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for complex tumors: comparison of perioperative outcomes. Eur Urol. 2012;61(6):1257–62.
Patel MN, Krane LS, Bhandari A, Laungani RG, Shrivastava A, Siddiqui SA, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors larger than 4 cm. Eur Urol. 2010;57(2):310–6.
Petros FG, Patel MN, Kheterpal E, Siddiqui S, Ross J, Bhandari A, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy in the setting of prior abdominal surgery. BJU Int. 2011;108(3):413–9.
Rogers CG, Ghani KR, Kumar RK, Jeong W, Menon M. Robotic partial nephrectomy with cold ischemia and on-clamp tumor extraction: recapitulating the open approach. Eur Urol. 2013;63(3):573–8.
Rogers CG, Singh A, Blatt AM, Linehan WM, Pinto PA. Robotic partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors: surgical technique. Eur Urol. 2008;53(3):514–21.
Volpe A, Garrou D, Amparore D, De Naeyer G, Porpiglia F, Ficarra V, et al. Perioperative and renal functional outcomes of elective robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for renal tumours with high surgical complexity. BJU Int. 2014;114(6):903–9.
Wang Y, Ma X, Huang Q, Du Q, Gong H, Shang J, et al. Comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumours with a RENAL nephrometry score >/=7: peri-operative and oncological outcomes. BJU Int. 2016;117(1):126–30.
Wang Y, Shao J, Ma X, Du Q, Gong H, Zhang X. Robotic and open partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors: a matched-pair comparison with a long-term follow-up. World J Urol. 2017;35(1):73–80.
Kaczmarek BF, Sukumar S, Kumar RK, Desa N, Jost K, Diaz M, et al. Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic ultrasound probes for robotic partial nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2013;27(9):1137–40.
Minervini A, Carini M, Uzzo RG, Campi R, Smaldone MC, Kutikov A. Standardized reporting of resection technique during nephron-sparing surgery: the surface-intermediate-base margin score. Eur Urol. 2014;66(5):803–5.
Minervini A, di Cristofano C, Lapini A, Marchi M, Lanzi F, Giubilei G, et al. Histopathologic analysis of peritumoral pseudocapsule and surgical margin status after tumor enucleation for renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2009;55(6):1410–8.
Lane BR, Gill IS, Fergany AF, Larson BT, Campbell SC. Limited warm ischemia during elective partial nephrectomy has only a marginal impact on renal functional outcomes. J Urol. 2011;185(5):1598–603.
Mir MC, Campbell RA, Sharma N, Remer EM, Simmons MN, Li J, et al. Parenchymal volume preservation and ischemia during partial nephrectomy: functional and volumetric analysis. Urology. 2013;82(2):263–8.
Simmons MN, Hillyer SP, Lee BH, Fergany AF, Kaouk J, Campbell SC. Functional recovery after partial nephrectomy: effects of volume loss and ischemic injury. J Urol. 2012;187(5):1667–73.
Simmons MN, Lieser GC, Fergany AF, Kaouk J, Campbell SC. Association between warm ischemia time and renal parenchymal atrophy after partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2013;189(5):1638–42.
Khalifeh A, Autorino R, Hillyer SP, Kaouk JH. V-hilar suture renorrhaphy during robotic partial nephrectomy for renal hilar tumors: preliminary outcomes of a novel surgical technique. Urology. 2012;80(2):466–71.
Janda G, Deal A, Yang H, Nielsen M, Smith A, Pruthi RS, et al. Single-institution experience with robotic partial nephrectomy for renal masses greater than 4 cm. J Endourol. 2016;30(4):384–9.
Bi L, Zhang C, Li K, Fan X, Xu K, Han J, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors larger than 4 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e75050.
Tiu A, Kim KH, Shin TY, Han WK, Han SW, Rha KH. Feasibility of robotic laparoendoscopic single-site partial nephrectomy for renal tumors >4 cm. Eur Urol. 2013;63(5):941–6.
Hillyer SP, Bhayani SB, Allaf ME, Rogers CG, Stifelman MD, Tanagho Y, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy for solitary kidney: a multi-institutional analysis. Urology. 2013;81(1):93–7.
Parekh DJ, Weinberg JM, Ercole B, Torkko KC, Hilton W, Bennett M, et al. Tolerance of the human kidney to isolated controlled ischemia. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013;24(3):506–17.
Lane BR, Russo P, Uzzo RG, Hernandez AV, Boorjian SA, Thompson RH, et al. Comparison of cold and warm ischemia during partial nephrectomy in 660 solitary kidneys reveals predominant role of nonmodifiable factors in determining ultimate renal function. J Urol. 2011;185(2):421–7.
Simone G, Gill IS, Mottrie A, Kutikov A, Patard JJ, Alcaraz A, et al. Indications, techniques, outcomes, and limitations for minimally ischemic and off-clamp partial nephrectomy: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2015;68(4):632–40.
Bollens R, Rosenblatt A, Espinoza BP, De Groote A, Quackels T, Roumeguere T, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with “on-demand” clamping reduces warm ischemia time. Eur Urol. 2007;52(3):804–9.
Baumert H, Ballaro A, Shah N, Mansouri D, Zafar N, Molinie V, et al. Reducing warm ischaemia time during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a prospective comparison of two renal closure techniques. Eur Urol. 2007;52(4):1164–9.
Peyronnet B, Baumert H, Mathieu R, Masson-Lecomte A, Grassano Y, Roumiguie M, et al. Early unclamping technique during robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy can minimise warm ischaemia without increasing morbidity. BJU Int. 2014;114(5):741–7.
Nguyen MM, Gill IS. Halving ischemia time during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2008;179(2):627–32. discussion 32
Williams SB, Kacker R, Alemozaffar M, Francisco IS, Mechaber J, Wagner AA. Robotic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a single laparoscopic trained surgeon’s experience in the development of a robotic partial nephrectomy program. World J Urol. 2013;31(4):793–8.
Nohara T, Fujita H, Yamamoto K, Kitagawa Y, Gabata T, Namiki M. Modified anatrophic partial nephrectomy with selective renal segmental artery clamping to preserve renal function: a preliminary report. Int J Urol. 2008;15(11):961–6.
Shao P, Qin C, Yin C, Meng X, Ju X, Li J, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with segmental renal artery clamping: technique and clinical outcomes. Eur Urol. 2011;59(5):849–55.
Qian J, Li P, Qin C, Zhang S, Bao M, Liang C, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with precise segmental renal artery clamping for clinical T1b tumors. J Endourol. 2015;29(12):1386–91.
Gill IS, Eisenberg MS, Aron M, Berger A, Ukimura O, Patil MB, et al. “Zero ischemia” partial nephrectomy: novel laparoscopic and robotic technique. Eur Urol. 2011;59(1):128–34.
Ng CK, Gill IS, Patil MB, Hung AJ, Berger AK, de Castro Abreu AL, et al. Anatomic renal artery branch microdissection to facilitate zero-ischemia partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;61(1):67–74.
McClintock TR, Bjurlin MA, Wysock JS, Borofsky MS, Marien TP, Okoro C, et al. Can selective arterial clamping with fluorescence imaging preserve kidney function during robotic partial nephrectomy? Urology. 2014;84(2):327–32.
Navarro AP, Sohrabi S, Colechin E, Griffiths C, Talbot D, Soomro NA. Evaluation of the ischemic protection efficacy of a laparoscopic renal cooling device using renal transplantation viability assessment criteria in a porcine model. J Urol. 2008;179(3):1184–9.
Shikanov S, Wille M, Large M, Razmaria A, Lifshitz DA, Chang A, et al. Microparticulate ice slurry for renal hypothermia: laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in a porcine model. Urology. 2010;76(4):1012–6.
Kijvikai K, Viprakasit DP, Milhoua P, Clark PE, Herrell SD. A simple, effective method to create laparoscopic renal protective hypothermia with cold saline surface irrigation: clinical application and assessment. J Urol. 2010;184(5):1861–6.
Landman J, Venkatesh R, Lee D, Vanlangendonck R, Morissey K, Andriole GL, et al. Renal hypothermia achieved by retrograde endoscopic cold saline perfusion: technique and initial clinical application. Urology. 2003;61(5):1023–5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dalela, D., Rogers, C. (2018). Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy for Complex Renal Tumors. In: Hemal, A., Menon, M. (eds) Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20645-5_41
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20645-5_41
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20644-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20645-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)