Advertisement

Conversion of Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy to Radical Nephrectomy: A Prospective Multi-institutional Study

Published:December 25, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.11.046

      Objective

      To assess the incidence and factors affecting conversion from robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) to radical nephrectomy.

      Methods

      Between November 2014 and February 2017, 501 patients underwent attempted RAPN by 22 surgeons at 14 centers in 9 countries within the Vattikuti Collaborative Quality Initiative database. Patients were permanently logged for RAPN prior to surgery and were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Multivariable logistic regression with backward stepwise selection of variables was done to assess the factors associated with conversion to radical nephrectomy.

      Results

      Overall conversion rate was 25 of 501 (5%). Patients converted to radical nephrectomy were older (median age [interquartile range] 66.0 [61.0-74.0] vs 59.0 [50.0-68.0], P = .012), had higher body mass index (BMI) (median 32.8 [24.9-40.9] vs 27.8 [24.6-31.5] kg/m2, P = .031), higher age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity score (median 6.0 [4.0-7.0] vs 4.0 [3.0-5.0], P <.001), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score (score ≥3; 13/25 (52.0%) vs 130/476 (27.3%), P = .021), Preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (P = .141), clinical tumor stage (P = .145), tumor location (P = .140), multifocality (P = .483), and RENAL (radius, exophytic/endophytic properties, nearness of tumor to the collecting system or sinus in millimeters, and anterior/posterior location relative to polar lines) nephrometry score (P = .125) were not significantly different between the groups. On multivariable analysis, independent predictors for conversion were BMI (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]; 1.070 [1.018-1.124]; P = .007) and Charlson score (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]; 1.459 [1.179-1.806]; P = .001).

      Conclusion

      RAPN was associated with a low rate of conversion. Independent predictors of conversion were BMI and Charlson score. Tumor factors such as clinical stage, location, multifocality, or RENAL score were not associated with increased risk of conversion.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Campbell S.
        • Uzzo R.G.
        • Allaf M.E.
        • et al.
        Renal mass and localized renal cancer: AUA guideline.
        J Urol. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.04.100
        • Choi J.E.
        • You J.H.
        • Kim D.K.
        • Rha K.H.
        • Lee S.H.
        Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 891-901https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.028
        • Lucas S.M.
        • Mellon M.J.
        • Erntsberger L.
        • Sundaram C.P.
        A comparison of robotic, laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy.
        JSLS J Soc Laparoendosc Surg. 2012; 16: 581-587https://doi.org/10.4293/108680812X13462882737177
        • Luciani L.G.
        • Chiodini S.
        • Mattevi D.
        • et al.
        Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy provides better operative outcomes as compared to the laparoscopic and open approaches: results from a prospective cohort study.
        J Robot Surg. 2017; 11: 333-339https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0660-2
        • Arora S.
        • Abaza R.
        • Adshead J.M.
        • et al.
        “Trifecta” outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in solitary kidney: a Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative (VCQI) database analysis.
        BJU Int. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13967
        • Benway B.M.
        • Bhayani S.B.
        • Rogers C.G.
        • et al.
        Robot assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors: a multi-institutional analysis of perioperative outcomes.
        J Urol. 2009; 182: 866-873https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.037
        • Long J.-A.
        • Yakoubi R.
        • Lee B.
        • et al.
        Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for complex tumors: comparison of perioperative outcomes.
        Eur Urol. 2012; 61: 1257-1262https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.03.012
        • Rogers C.G.
        • Singh A.
        • Blatt A.M.
        • Linehan W.M.
        • Pinto P.A.
        Robotic partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors: surgical technique.
        Eur Urol. 2008; 53: 514-523https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.09.047
        • Huang W.C.
        • Levey A.S.
        • Serio A.M.
        • et al.
        Chronic kidney disease after nephrectomy in patients with renal cortical tumours: a retrospective cohort study.
        Lancet Oncol. 2006; 7: 735-740https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70803-8
        • Leibovich B.C.
        • Blute M.L.
        • Cheville J.C.
        • Lohse C.M.
        • Weaver A.L.
        • Zincke H.
        Nephron sparing surgery for appropriately selected renal cell carcinoma between 4 and 7 cm results in outcome similar to radical nephrectomy.
        J Urol. 2004; 171: 1066-1070https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000113274.40885.db
        • Kim S.P.
        • Thompson R.H.
        • Boorjian S.A.
        • et al.
        Comparative effectiveness for survival and renal function of partial and radical nephrectomy for localized renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Urol. 2012; 188: 51-57https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.03.006
        • Kara Ö.
        • Maurice M.J.
        • Mouracade P.
        • et al.
        When partial nephrectomy is unsuccessful: understanding the reasons for conversion from robotic partial to radical nephrectomy at a tertiary referral center.
        J Urol. 2017; 198: 30-35https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.01.019
        • DeLong J.M.
        • Shapiro O.
        • Moinzadeh A.
        Comparison of laparoscopic versus robotic assisted partial nephrectomy: one surgeon's initial experience.
        Can J Urol. 2010; 17: 5207-5212
        • Galvin D.J.
        • Savage C.J.
        • Adamy A.
        • et al.
        Intraoperative conversion from partial to radical nephrectomy at a single institution from 2003 to 2008.
        J Urol. 2011; 185: 1204-1209https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.11.077
        • Janda G.
        • Deal A.
        • Yang H.
        • et al.
        Single-institution experience with robotic partial nephrectomy for renal masses greater than 4 cm.
        J Endourol. 2016; 30: 384-389https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2015.0254
        • Jeong W.
        • Park S.Y.
        • Lorenzo E.I.S.
        • Oh C.K.
        • Han W.K.
        • Rha K.H.
        Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.
        J Endourol. 2009; 23: 1457-1460https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.0302
        • Khandwala Y.S.
        • Jeong I.G.
        • Kim J.H.
        • et al.
        The incidence of unsuccessful partial nephrectomy within the United States: a nationwide population-based analysis from 2003 to 2015.
        Urol Oncol. 2017; 35: 672.e7-672.e13
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28889920
        Date accessed: November 14, 2017
        • Edge S.B.
        • Compton C.C.
        The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2010; 17: 1471-1474https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-0985-4
        • Kutikov A.
        • Uzzo R.G.
        The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth.
        J Urol. 2009; 182: 844-853https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.035
        • Cockcroft D.W.
        • Gault H.
        Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine.
        Nephron. 1976; 16: 31-41https://doi.org/10.1159/000180580
        • Bursac Z.
        • Gauss C.H.
        • Williams D.K.
        • Hosmer D.W.
        Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression.
        Source Code Biol Med. 2008; 3: 17https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0473-3-17
        • Campbell S.C.
        • Novick A.C.
        • Belldegrun A.
        • et al.
        Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass.
        J Urol. 2009; 182: 1271-1279https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.07.004
        • Patel M.N.
        • Krane L.S.
        • Bhandari A.
        • et al.
        Robotic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors larger than 4 cm.
        Eur Urol. 2010; 57: 310-316https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.11.024
        • Komninos C.
        • Shin T.Y.
        • Tuliao P.
        • et al.
        Robotic partial nephrectomy for completely endophytic renal tumors: complications and functional and oncologic outcomes during a 4-year median period of follow-up.
        Urology. 2014; 84: 1367-1373https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.08.012
        • Laydner H.
        • Autorino R.
        • Spana G.
        • et al.
        Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for sporadic ipsilateral multifocal renal tumours.
        BJU Int. 2012; 109: 274-280https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10319.x
        • Abdollah F.
        • Arora S.
        • von Landenberg N.
        • et al.
        Testing the external validity of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Randomized Trial 30904 comparing overall survival after radical nephrectomy vs nephron-sparing surgery in contemporary North American patients with renal cell cancer.
        BJU Int. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14039
        • Van Poppel H.
        • Da Pozzo L.
        • Albrecht W.
        • 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: 543-552https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.12.013
        • Png K.S.
        • Bahler C.D.
        • Milgrom D.P.
        • Lucas S.M.
        • Sundaram C.P.
        Re: The role of R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score in the era of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy.
        J Urol. 2013; 190: 1712https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.07.052
        • Colombo J.R.J.
        • Haber G.-P.
        • Aron M.
        • Xu M.
        • Gill I.S.
        Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in obese patients.
        Urology. 2007; 69: 44-48
        • Feder M.T.
        • Patel M.B.
        • Melman A.
        • Ghavamian R.
        • Hoenig D.M.
        Comparison of open and laparoscopic nephrectomy in obese and nonobese patients: outcomes stratified by body mass index.
        J Urol. 2008; 180: 79-83https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.023