Abstract
Purpose
To describe the practice of robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) in France and prospectively assess the late complications and long-term outcomes.
Methods
Prospective, multicenter (n = 16), observational study including all patients diagnosed with a renal tumor who underwent RAPN. Preoperative, intraoperative, postoperative, and follow-up data were collected and stored in the French research network for kidney cancer database (UroCCR). Patients were included over a period of 12 months, then followed for 5 years.
Results
In total, 466 patients were included, representing 472 RAPN. The mean tumor size was 3.4 ± 1.7 cm, most of moderate complexity (median PADUA and RENAL scores of 8 [7–10] and 7 [5–9]). Indication for nephron-sparing surgery was relative in 7.1% of cases and imperative in 11.8%. Intraoperative complications occurred in 6.8% of patients and 4.2% of RAPN had to be converted to open surgery. Severe postoperative complications were experienced in 2.3% of patients and late complications in 48 patients (10.3%), mostly within the first 3 months and mainly comprising vascular, infectious, or parietal complications. At 5 years, 29 patients (6.2%) had chronic kidney disease upstaging, 21 (4.5%) were diagnosed with local recurrence, eight (1.7%) with contralateral recurrence, 25 (5.4%) with metastatic progression, and 10 (2.1%) died of the disease.
Conclusion
Our results reflect the contemporary practice of French expert centers and is, to our knowledge, the first to provide prospective data on late complications associated with RAPN. We have shown that RAPN provides good functional and oncologic outcomes while limiting short- and long-term morbidity.
Trial registration
NCT03292549.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is increasing worldwide [1], with a majority of small renal masses incidentally diagnosed on cross-sectional imaging [2]. European guidelines recommend performing partial nephrectomy (PN) for the management of localized RCC when technically feasible [3]. Nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) allows comparable oncologic outcomes and better preservation of renal function compared with radical nephrectomy [4], and the development of robotic surgery has drastically reduced the perioperative morbidity of PN [5, 6].
The number of robotic-assisted partial nephrectomies (RAPN) performed each year has increased exponentially [7]; in France, 160 RAPN were registered in 2010 compared to over 1500 in 2015 [8]. In the hope to get this technique being recognized and reimbursed by the national health insurance, it was therefore essential to assess patient characteristics, as well as operative and clinical outcomes, for this expanding procedure.
The objective of the Robotic Partial Nephrectomy (RoPaN) study was to form a large prospective cohort to describe the practice of RAPN in France, and to assess the late complications as well as long term outcomes.
Methods
Study design
We conducted a prospective, observational study including all patients who underwent RAPN in 16 French tertiary centers. Preoperative, intraoperative, postoperative, and follow-up data were collected prospectively after written informed consent and stored in the French research network for kidney cancer database, UroCCR (CNIL DR 2013-206; NCT03293563). Patients were included over a period of 12 months, then followed for 5 years with specific assessment of long-term complications at the three follow-up visits within the first year (Supplementary Fig. 1). The study was authorized and approved ethically by the Advisory Committee on Data Management in Health Research, and was registered on the US National Library of Medicine Trial Registry (NCT03292549).
Study population
All adults patients diagnosed with a renal tumor and scheduled for a RAPN were included in the cohort. There were no exclusion criteria.
Outcomes
The objectives were to describe the characteristics of patients undergoing RAPN and the surgical techniques and to assess peri- and postoperative morbidity, long term functional and oncologic outcomes. Patient data included age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score, body mass index (BMI), solitary kidney, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and tumor characteristics (size, bilateral/multifocal status, cystic component, complexity according to PADUA [9] and RENAL [10] scores). Surgical data included operative time, type of clamping, warm ischemia time (WIT), blood loss, hemostasis procedure (e.g., suture, hemostatic agent used, early unclamping, etc.), approach used (transperitoneal vs. retroperitoneal), and conversion to open surgery. The percentage of surgeries meeting the trifecta [11] criteria (absence of perioperative complications, negative margins, and WIT < 25 min) was also documented. Morbidity was assessed in terms of per- and postoperative transfusion rates, medical or surgical complication rates (graded according to Clavien-Dindo score (CDS)), and length of hospital stay. Late morbidity was recorded at 1–3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Pathology results were reported (including margins, TNM stage, histological subtype, International Society of Urologic Pathologists (ISUP) grade) and functional outcomes were assessed by measuring the serum creatinine level and estimating the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) according to the Modification Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) formula pre- and postoperatively (at hospital discharge and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively). We also recorded any CKD upstaging at any follow-up. Finally, we assessed the long-term oncologic and functional outcomes 5 years after the surgery.
Statistical analysis
Quantitative variables are reported as mean ± standard deviation or median (interquartile range). The Mann–Whitney test was used to compare non-normally distributed continuous variables. All tests were bilateral with an α-risk of 5%.
Results
Patients and tumors characteristics
A total of 466 patients were included over a 1-year period (from March 2015 to March 2016), representing 472 RAPN (Table 1). Two-thirds of patients were male, and the mean age was 61.5 ± 12.2 years. Most tumors (73.8%) were cT1, with a mean size of 3.4 ± 1.7 cm. The median PADUA score was 8 [7–10] and median RENAL score was 7 [5–9], indicating mostly moderate complexity NSS tumors (Table 2). Nephron-sparing surgery was performed for an elective indication in 80.3% of cases, mostly using a transperitoneal approach (86.7%) (Table 1). The mean operating time was 157.2 ± 65.6 min. Clamping was used in most surgeries (94.4%), principally of the main renal artery (76.0%).
Morbidity
The mean estimated blood loss was 272.2 ± 385.4 mL, with 18 patients (3.8%) requiring transfusion. Intraoperative complications occurred in 32 patients (6.8%), and conversion to open surgery was required in 20 RAPN (4.2%). In the population of patients who required conversion to open surgery, the mean tumor size was 4.5 ± 2.1 cm, and the median RENAL score was 9 [6–9]. Early postoperative surgical complications (within the hospital stay) were experienced in 26 patients (5.5%) (Table 3). These were severe (CDS ≥ 3) in 11 patients (2.3%). The mean hospital stay was 4.2 ± 2.9 days. Lastly, two patients (0.4%) died within the first month postoperatively.
Regarding late complications, 48 patients (10.3%) had one or more surgical complication in the 12 months post-surgery after discharge from hospital, mostly within the first 3 months and mainly comprising vascular, infectious, or parietal complications (Table 3).
Functional and oncologic outcomes
The mean GFR decreased significantly postoperatively compared to preoperatively, with an average GFR loss of 6.2 ± 15.9 mL/min at 3 months. Fifty-two patients (11.2%) had CKD upstaging at discharge, 15 (3.2%) at 3 months, 16 (3.4%) at 6 months, 21 (4.5%) at 12 months, and 29 (6.2%) at 5 years (Table 4).
Overall, 484 tumors were removed, and pathology reports showed 91 benign lesions (18.8%). Among the 393 malignant lesions, 66.7% were clear cell RCC and 4.6% had positive margins (Table 2).
After 12 months of follow up, three patients (0.8%) experienced a local recurrence and two (0.5%) a contralateral recurrence (mean time 8.2 ± 1.5 months). Five patients (1.3%) were diagnosed with metastatic progression (mean time 8.8 ± 4.1 months), and the overall mortality rate was 0.9%.
After 5 years of follow-up, 21 patients (4.5%) experienced a local recurrence and eight (1.7%) had a contralateral recurrence (mean time 35.1 ± 25.11 months). Twenty-five patients (5.4%) were diagnosed with metastatic progression (mean time 35.4 ± 24.9 months). Twenty-five patients (5.4%) died during follow-up, including 10 (2.1%) related to RCC.
Discussion
Robot-assisted PN has become the gold standard in the management of small renal masses and the number of RAPN performed each year is increasing exponentially. While early studies indicated the need for careful case selection [12, 13] and restricted indications to patients with low comorbidity and small, uncomplicated tumors, RAPN is now being offered to larger populations. Indeed, development of the robotic approach for NSS appears to significantly decrease its morbidity [5, 5] and is therefore particularly beneficial for older [15] and comorbid patients, as well as those with more complex tumors. This is well reflected in contemporary French practice within the centers included in our study, with almost 13% of patients presenting with an ASA ≥ 3 score, 12% of tumors being of high complexity according to the RENAL score, and indications for imperative and relative NSS in 12% and 7% of patients, respectively (including 2.4% of single kidneys and 5.6% of bilateral tumors).
Our study also confirms the safety of RAPN, with early medical and surgical complication rates of 15% and 5.5%, respectively, including major complications in 2.3% of patients. These results are consistent with published retrospective cohorts, which found complication rates between 15 and 24% [16,17,18,19,20,21], with major complications in < 4% of patients. These rates are considerably lower than those observed in open surgery; for example, in a retrospective multicentric study comparing 560 open surgeries and 1409 RAPN [6], Ingels et al. reported a complication rate of 17.9% for the robotic approach (of which 2% were major), compared to 34.9% (5.5% major) for the open approach (p < 0.0001), as well as a shorter mean hospital stay (4.2 vs. 7.1 days). The length of stay was similar in our study. The increased safety provided by the robotic approach has allowed the recent implementation of new care pathways [22], with Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols and even outpatient surgery [23] in selected patients, which will considerably reduce hospital stays in future cohorts. To our knowledge, our study is the first national prospective cohort with follow-up over 5 years that has aimed to evaluate the long-term complications of RAPN. We have established that the morbidity of RAPN is acceptable, with an additional 10.3% of late complications occurring between hospital discharge and the first year, mostly in the first three months after surgery.
When considering the rate of conversion to open surgery, the literature shows rates between 1.1 and 1.6% [11, 15, 21]. It is higher in our population. This can partly be explained by the predominance of patients with tumors of intermediate complexity (median RENAL score of 7). In addition, these conversions occur in patients with larger tumors (mean size of 4.5 cm) and high complexity (median RENAL score of 9).
Functional outcomes in our study are consistent with those found in the literature [21, 24]. In the retrospective cohort by Khalifeh et al. [25], there were an average GFR loss of 8% three years after surgery, compared to 8.9% at 5 years in our study. These values are very acceptable, with < 5% of patients presenting with CKD upstaging at the 1-year follow up. Regarding the quality of the procedures, evaluated by the Trifecta, the robotic approach seems to allow good results with, in our series, 67.4% of the procedures fulfilling the criteria. This rate is higher than those observed in the literature, usually between 45 and 54% depending on the studies [15,16,17, 26].
Finally, although the oncologic safety of RAPN has been debated, it is no longer in question and several authors have reported good oncologic outcomes [24, 26, 27]. In the retrospective study conducted by Andrade et al. [16], including 115 patients undergoing RAPN, the five-year cancer-free survival rate was 97.8%. In the cohort of 278 RAPN studied by Bertolo et al. [17] the median follow-up was 46 months, during which 10.1% of patients died, 1.8% related to the disease; 3.6% of patients experienced recurrence at five years and 3.2% had become metastatic. Our cohort had slightly higher, but still acceptable, recurrence and metastatic progression rates at five years of 6.2% and 5.4%, respectively, while the disease-related mortality was similar at 2.1%.
The multicentric nature of our study, while reflecting French practice in its entirety, also leads to limitations in the interpretation of perioperative morbidity. Surgical techniques, the expertise of surgeons, and volume of activity vary between centers and may therefore have an impact on complication rates. As the patients were enrolled and operated on more than five years ago, we could discuss the relevance of our study in contemporary practice. However, if we consider more recent retrospective cohorts, such as the one by Ingels et al. [6], the characteristics of the enclosed patients and the results are similar to those of our series, and therefore our findings are still relevant.
With the rapid evolution of robotic surgery, many technologies have been developed in recent years. Mini ultrasound probes inserted through the trocars help to identify tumor margins and localize endophytic tumors [28]. Three-dimensional (3D) models of the kidney, vascularization, and the tumor are made from preoperative computed tomography scans and allow planning and guidance of robot-assisted surgery, introducing the concept of 3D Image-Guided Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy (3D-IGRAPN) and further decreasing the complication rates of NSS [29]. More recently, augmented reality technology that merges the 3D model and the intraoperative robotic view is being developed [30]. It is likely that these innovations will change the characteristics of RAPN patients and outcomes in the years to come.
Conclusions
Our national, multicenter, prospective, observational study reflects the practice of RAPN in France and is, to our knowledge, the first to provide data on late complications associated with RAPN. As RAPN has become the gold standard for managing small renal masses, our series confirms the very good functional and oncologic outcomes of this surgery, while limiting short- and long-term morbidity.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are stored in the UroCCR database and available on request.
References
Bukavina L, Bensalah K, Bray F et al (2022) Epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma: 2022 update. Eur Urol 82(5):529–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2022.08.019
Kane CJ, Mallin K, Ritchey J, Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR (2008) Renal cell cancer stage migration: analysis of the National Cancer Data Base. Cancer 113(1):78–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23518
Ljungberg B, Albiges L, Abu-Ghanem Y et al (2022) European association of urology guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2022 update. Eur Urol 82(4):399–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2022.03.006
Scosyrev E, Messing EM, Sylvester R, Campbell S, Van Poppel H (2014) Renal function after nephron-sparing surgery versus radical nephrectomy: results from EORTC randomized trial 30904. Eur Urol 65(2):372–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.06.044
Peyronnet B, Seisen T, Oger E et al (2016) Comparison of 1800 robotic and open partial nephrectomies for renal tumors. Ann Surg Oncol 23(13):4277–4283. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5411-0
Ingels A, Bensalah K, Beauval JB et al (2022) Comparison of open and robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy approaches using multicentric data (UroCCR-47 study). Sci Rep 12(1):18981. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-22912-8
Patel HD, Mullins JK, Pierorazio PM et al (2013) Trends in renal surgery: robotic technology is associated with increased use of partial nephrectomy. J Urol 189(4):1229–1235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.10.024
The kidney cancer working group of the cancer committee of the French, Association of Urology and The UroCCR Network, Ouzaid I et al (2020) Trends in the practice of renal surgery for cancer in France after the introduction of robotic-assisted surgery: data from the National Health Care System Registry. J Robotic Surg. 14(5):799–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01076-5
Ficarra V, Novara G, Secco S et al (2009) Preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) classification of renal tumours in patients who are candidates for nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol 56(5):786–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.07.040
Kutikov A, Uzzo RG (2009) The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J Urol 182(3):844–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.035
Khalifeh A, Autorino R, Hillyer SP et al (2013) Comparative outcomes and assessment of trifecta in 500 robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy cases: a single surgeon experience. J Urol 189(4):1236–1242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.10.021
Ho H, Schwentner C, Neururer R, Steiner H, Bartsch G, Peschel R (2009) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: surgical technique and clinical outcomes at 1 year. BJU Int 103(5):663–668. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08060.x
Benway BM, Bhayani SB (2011) Surgical outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: SURGICAL OUTCOMES OF RAPN. BJU Int 108(6b):955–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10470.x
J-ERUS/YAU Robotic Urology Working Group, Grivas N, Kalampokis N et al (2019) Robot-assisted versus open partial nephrectomy: comparison of outcomes. A systematic review. Minerva Urol Nefrol. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03391-5
Ingels A, Duc S, Bensalah K et al (2021) Postoperative outcomes of elderly patients undergoing partial nephrectomy. Sci Rep 11(1):17201. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-96676-y
Andrade HS, Zargar H, Caputo PA et al (2016) Five-year oncologic outcomes after transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 69(6):1149–1154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.004
Bertolo R, Garisto J, Dagenais J et al (2019) Transperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy with minimum follow-up of 5 years: oncological and functional outcomes from a single institution. Eur Urol Oncol 2(2):207–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.06.012
Camp C, O’Hara J, Hughes D, Adshead J (2018) Short-term outcomes and costs following partial nephrectomy in England: a population-based study. Eur Urol Focus 4(4):579–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.03.010
Ghani KR, Sukumar S, Sammon JD, Rogers CG, Trinh QD, Menon M (2014) 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 191(4):907–913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.10.099
Kaouk JH, Khalifeh A, Hillyer S, Haber GP, Stein RJ, Autorino R (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: step-by-step contemporary technique and surgical outcomes at a single high-volume institution. Eur Urol 62(3):553–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.021
Casale P, Lughezzani G, Buffi N, Larcher A, Porter J, Mottrie A (2019) Evolution of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: techniques and outcomes from the transatlantic robotic nephron-sparing surgery study group. Eur Urol 76(2):222–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.038
Bernhard JC, Robert G, Ricard S et al (2022) Nurse-led coordinated surgical care pathways for cost optimization of robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy: medico-economic analysis of the UroCCR-25 AMBU-REIN study. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04066-4
Bernhard JC, Robert G, Ricard S et al (2020) Day-case robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy: feasibility and preliminary results of a prospective evaluation (UroCCR-25 AMBU-REIN study). World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03283-z
Carbonara U, Simone G, Capitanio U et al (2021) Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: 7-year outcomes. Minerva Urol Nephrol. https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6051.20.04151-X
Khalifeh A, Autorino R, Eyraud R et al (2013) Three-year oncologic and renal functional outcomes after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 64(5):744–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.052
Beauval JB, Peyronnet B, Benoit T et al (2018) Long-term oncological outcomes after robotic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a prospective multicentre study. World J Urol 36(6):897–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2208-8
Vartolomei MD, Matei DV, Renne G et al (2019) Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: 5-yr oncological outcomes at a single European tertiary cancer center. Eur Urol Focus 5(4):636–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.10.005
Sun Y, Wang W, Zhang Q, Zhao X, Xu L, Guo H (2021) Intraoperative ultrasound: technique and clinical experience in robotic-assisted renal partial nephrectomy for endophytic renal tumors. Int Urol Nephrol 53(3):455–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-020-02664-y
Michiels C, Khene ZE, Prudhomme T et al (2021) 3D-Image guided robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy: a multi-institutional propensity score-matched analysis (UroCCR study 51). World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03645-1
Khaddad A, Bernhard JC, Margue G et al (2022) A survey of augmented reality methods to guide minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04078-0
Acknowledgements
The draft manuscript was written and edited by Deborah Nock (Medical WriteAway, Norwich, UK), with full review and approval by all authors at every stage. The services of the medical writer were funded by Intuitive Surgical SAS, France.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Manuscript editing writing: GM, JCB. Data collection and management: GM, AI, KBND, CV, MR, FA, AM, FB, JO, HB, CM, PP, BP, PS, JAL, HL, TL, JJP, JCB. Protocol development: JCB. Data analysis: GM, JCB.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Ethical approval
This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was authorized and approved ethically by the Advisory Committee on Data Management in Health Research, and was registered on the US National Library of Medicine Trial Registry (NCT03292549).
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Margue, G., Ingels, A., Bensalah, K. et al. Late complications and 5 years outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy in France: prospective assessment in the French Kidney Cancer Research Network (UroCCR 10). World J Urol 41, 2281–2288 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04491-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04491-z