FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2135414181> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2135414181 endingPage "873" @default.
• W2135414181 startingPage "866" @default.
• W2135414181 abstract "No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 Sep 2009Robot Assisted Partial Nephrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for Renal Tumors: A Multi-Institutional Analysis of Perioperative Outcomesis accompanied byTraining Requirements and Credentialing for Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery—What are Our Responsibilities? Brian M. Benway, Sam B. Bhayani, Craig G. Rogers, Lori M. Dulabon, Manish N. Patel, Michael Lipkin, Agnes J. Wang, and Michael D. Stifelman Brian M. BenwayBrian M. Benway Division of Urologic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri More articles by this author , Sam B. BhayaniSam B. Bhayani Division of Urologic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri Financial interest and/or other relationship with Intuitive Surgical. More articles by this author , Craig G. RogersCraig G. Rogers Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan Financial interest and/or other relationship with Intuitive Surgical. More articles by this author , Lori M. DulabonLori M. Dulabon Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York More articles by this author , Manish N. PatelManish N. Patel Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan More articles by this author , Michael LipkinMichael Lipkin Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York More articles by this author , Agnes J. WangAgnes J. Wang Division of Urologic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri More articles by this author , and Michael D. StifelmanMichael D. Stifelman Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York Financial interest and/or other relationship with Intuitive Surgical. More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.037AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: Robot assisted partial nephrectomy is rapidly emerging as an alternative to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for the treatment of renal malignancy. We present the largest multi-institution comparison of the 2 approaches to date, describing outcomes from 3 experienced minimally invasive surgeons. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review, evaluating 118 consecutive laparoscopic partial nephrectomies and 129 consecutive robot assisted partial nephrectomies performed between 2004 and 2008 by 3 experienced minimally invasive surgeons at 3 academic centers. Perioperative data were recorded along with clinical and pathological outcomes. Results: The robot assisted and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy groups were equivalent in terms of age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (2.3 vs 2.4) and radiographic tumor size (2.9 vs 2.6 cm), respectively. Comparison of operative data revealed no significant differences in terms of overall operative time (189 vs 174 minutes), collecting system entry (47% vs 54%), pathological tumor size (2.8 vs 2.5 cm) and positive margin rate (3.9% vs 1%) for robot assisted and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, respectively. Intraoperative blood loss was less for robot assisted vs laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (155 vs 196 ml, p = 0.03) as was length of hospital stay (2.4 vs 2.7 days, p <0.0001). Warm ischemia times were significantly shorter in the robot assisted partial nephrectomy series (19.7 vs 28.4 minutes, p <0.0001). Subset analysis based on complexity revealed that tumor complexity had no effect on operative time or estimated blood loss for robot assisted partial nephrectomy, although complexity did affect these factors for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. In addition, for simple and complex tumors robot assisted partial nephrectomy provided significantly shorter warm ischemic time than laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (15.3 vs 25.2 minutes for simple, p <0.0001; 25.9 vs 36.7 minutes for complex, p = 0.0002). There were no intraoperative complications during robot assisted partial nephrectomy vs 1 complication during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Postoperative complication rates were similar for robot assisted and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (8.6% vs 10.2%). Conclusions: Robot assisted partial nephrectomy is a safe and viable alternative to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, providing equivalent early oncological outcomes and comparable morbidity to a traditional laparoscopic approach. Moreover robot assisted partial nephrectomy appears to offer the advantages of decreased hospital stay as well as significantly less intraoperative blood loss and shorter warm ischemia time, the latter of which may help to provide maximal preservation of renal reserve. In addition, operative parameters for robot assisted partial nephrectomy appear to be less affected by tumor complexity compared to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Interestingly while the advantages of robotic surgery have historically been believed to aid laparoscopic naïve surgeons, these data indicate that robot assisted partial nephrectomy may also benefit experienced laparoscopic surgeons. References 1 : Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in the pig model. J Urol1993; 149: 1633. Link, Google Scholar 2 : Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: initial case report for benign disease. J Endourol1993; 7: 521. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 3 : National utilization trends of partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a case of underutilization?. Urology2006; 67: 254. Google Scholar 4 : Robotic versus standard laparoscopic partial/wedge nephrectomy: a comparison of intraoperative and perioperative results from a single institution. J Endourol2008; 22: 947. Google Scholar 5 : Robotic assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for suspected renal cell carcinoma: retrospective review of surgical outcomes of 35 cases. BMC Surg2008; 8: 16. Google Scholar 6 : Robot assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: initial experience. J Urol2006; 176: 36. Link, Google Scholar 7 : Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: technique and initial clinical experience with DaVinci robotic system. Urology2004; 64: 914. Google Scholar 8 : Approach to the small renal mass: weighing treatment options. Curr Urol Rep2009; 10: 11. Google Scholar 9 : The role of nephron-sparing robotic surgery in the management of renal malignancy. Curr Opin Urol2009; 19: 76. Google Scholar 10 : da Vinci robotic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: an atlas of the four-arm technique. J Robot Surg2008; 1: 279. Google Scholar 11 : Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: the NYU technique. J Endourol2005; 19: 441. Google Scholar 12 : Robotic partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors: surgical technique. Eur Urol2008; 53: 514. Google Scholar 13 : Optimizing robotic renal surgery: the lateral camera port placement technique and current results. J Endourol2008; 22: 507. Google Scholar 14 : Current upper and lower urinary tract robotic surgery: strategies for success. BJU Int2007; 100: 1121. Google Scholar 15 : da Vinci-assisted robotic partial nephrectomy: technique and results at a mean of 15 months of follow-up. Eur Urol2007; 51: 186. Google Scholar 16 : The Washington University Renorrhaphy for robotic partial nephrectomy: a detailed description of the technique displayed at the 2008 World Robotic Urologic Symposium. J Robot Surg2008; 2: 139. Google Scholar 17 : Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with suture repair of the pelvicaliceal system. Urology2003; 61: 99. Google Scholar 18 : Impact of collecting-system repair during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Endourol2007; 21: 315. Google Scholar 19 : Robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison from a high-volume centre. BJU Int2008; 102: 86. Google Scholar 20 : Robotic partial nephrectomy with sliding-clip renorrhaphy: technique and outcomes. Eur Urol2009; 55: 592. Google Scholar 21 : Robotic partial nephrectomy: a multi-institutional analysis. J Robot Surg2008; 2: 141. Google Scholar 22 : Robotic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: single-surgeon analysis of >100 consecutive cases. Urology2009; 73: 306. Google Scholar 23 : Exploring the learning curve, pathological outcomes and perioperative morbidity of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy performed for renal mass. J Urol2005; 173: 1690. Link, Google Scholar 24 : Positive margins in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in 855 cases: a multi-institutional survey from the United States and Europe. J Urol2007; 178: 47. Link, Google Scholar 25 : Laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison of 200 patients. Eur Urol2009; . Epub ahead of print. Google Scholar 26 : Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy at the Mayo Clinic Arizona: follow-up surveillance of positive margin disease. Urology2008; 71: 283. Google Scholar 27 : Comparison of laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy in clinical T1a renal tumors. J Endourol2008; 22: 953. Google Scholar 28 : Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: surgical technique and clinical outcomes at 1 year. BJU Int2008; 103: 663. Google Scholar 29 : Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: initial clinical experience. Urology2009; 73: 302. Google Scholar 30 : Importance of surgical margins in the management of renal cell carcinoma. Nat Clin Pract Urol2008; 5: 308. Google Scholar 31 : Positive surgical margins at partial nephrectomy: predictors and oncological outcomes. J Urol2008; 179: 2158. Link, Google Scholar 32 : Halving ischemia time during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Urol2007; 179: 627. Google Scholar 33 : Maximizing console surgeon independence during robot-assisted renal surgery by using the fourth arm and TilePro™. J Endourol2009; 23: 115. Google Scholar © 2009 by American Urological AssociationFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byLaguna M (2020) Re: Effect of Obesity and Overweight Status on Complications and Survival after Minimally Invasive Kidney Surgery in Patients with Clinical T2-4 Renal MassesJournal of Urology, VOL. 204, NO. 2, (383-384), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2020.Harris A, Hensley P, Goodwin J, Dugan A, Peard L, Bell J, Bhalodi A and Bylund J (2018) Examining and Understanding Value: The Cost of Preoperative Characteristics, Intraoperative Variables and Postoperative Complications of Minimally Invasive Partial NephrectomyUrology Practice, VOL. 6, NO. 4, (215-221), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2019.Shin J, Han K, Kwon J, Kim G, Kim D, Han S, Kim H, Won J, Kim M and Lee D (2019) Clinical Results of Transarterial Embolization to Control Postoperative Vascular Complications after Partial NephrectomyJournal of Urology, VOL. 201, NO. 4, (702-708), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2019.Cacciamani G, Medina L, Gill T, Abreu A, Sotelo R, Artibani W and Gill I (2018) Impact of Surgical Factors on Robotic Partial Nephrectomy Outcomes: Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisJournal of Urology, VOL. 200, NO. 2, (258-274), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2018.Gupta R, Sunny N, Noyes S, Tourojman M, Paka B, Bossemeyer R and Lane B (2016) Functional Duration of Closure Systems Used in Partial NephrectomyJournal of Urology, VOL. 196, NO. 5, (1560-1565), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2016.Tabayoyong W, Abouassaly R, Kiechle J, Cherullo E, Meropol N, Shah N, Dong S, Thompson R, Smaldone M, Zhu H, Ialacci S and Kim S (2015) Variation in Surgical Margin Status by Surgical Approach among Patients Undergoing Partial Nephrectomy for Small Renal MassesJournal of Urology, VOL. 194, NO. 6, (1548-1553), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2015.Laguna M (2014) Re: Early Discharge after Laparoscopic or Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: Care Pathway EvaluationJournal of Urology, VOL. 192, NO. 6, (1639-1639), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2014.Ghani K, Sukumar S, Sammon J, Rogers C, Trinh Q and Menon M (2013) Practice Patterns and Outcomes of Open and Minimally Invasive Partial Nephrectomy Since the Introduction of Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: Results from the Nationwide Inpatient SampleJournal of Urology, VOL. 191, NO. 4, (907-913), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2014.Patel H, Mullins J, Pierorazio P, Jayram G, Cohen J, Matlaga B and Allaf M (2012) Trends in Renal Surgery: Robotic Technology is Associated with Increased Use of Partial NephrectomyJournal of Urology, VOL. 189, NO. 4, (1229-1235), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2013.Khalifeh A, Autorino R, Hillyer S, Laydner H, Eyraud R, Panumatrassamee K, Long J and Kaouk J (2012) Comparative Outcomes and Assessment of Trifecta in 500 Robotic and Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy Cases: A Single Surgeon ExperienceJournal of Urology, VOL. 189, NO. 4, (1236-1242), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2013.Ellison J, Montgomery J, Wolf J, Hafez K, Miller D and Weizer A (2012) A Matched Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes of a Single Laparoscopic Surgeon Versus a Multisurgeon Robot-Assisted Cohort for Partial NephrectomyJournal of Urology, VOL. 188, NO. 1, (45-50), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2012.Tanagho Y, Figenshau R, Sandhu G and Bhayani S (2012) Is There a Financial Disincentive to Perform Partial Nephrectomy?Journal of Urology, VOL. 187, NO. 6, (1995-1999), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2012.Simhan J, Smaldone M, Tsai K, Li T, Reyes J, Canter D, Kutikov A, Chen D, Greenberg R, Uzzo R and Viterbo R (2012) Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic and Open Partial Nephrectomy for Moderately and Highly Complex Renal LesionsJournal of Urology, VOL. 187, NO. 6, (2000-2004), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2012.Parker P, Swartz R, Fellman B, Urbauer D, Li Y, Pisters L, Rosser C, Wood C and Matin S (2012) Comprehensive Assessment of Quality of Life and Psychosocial Adjustment in Patients With Renal Tumors Undergoing Open, Laparoscopic and Nephron Sparing SurgeryJournal of Urology, VOL. 187, NO. 3, (822-826), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2012.Spana G, Haber G, Dulabon L, Petros F, Rogers C, Bhayani S, Stifelman M and Kaouk J (2011) Complications After Robotic Partial Nephrectomy at Centers of Excellence: Multi-Institutional Analysis of 450 CasesJournal of Urology, VOL. 186, NO. 2, (417-422), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2011.Tobis S, Knopf J, Silvers C, Yao J, Rashid H, Wu G and Golijanin D (2011) Near Infrared Fluorescence Imaging With Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: Initial Clinical Experience for Renal Cortical TumorsJournal of Urology, VOL. 186, NO. 1, (47-52), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2011.Kerbl D, McDougall E, Clayman R and Mucksavage P (2011) A History and Evolution of Laparoscopic Nephrectomy: Perspectives From the Past and Future Directions in the Surgical Management of Renal TumorsJournal of Urology, VOL. 185, NO. 3, (1150-1154), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2011.Related articlesJournal of Urology17 Jul 2009Training Requirements and Credentialing for Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery—What are Our Responsibilities? Volume 182Issue 3September 2009Page: 866-873 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2009 by American Urological AssociationKeywordsrenal cellroboticslaparoscopynephrectomycarcinomaMetrics Author Information Brian M. Benway Division of Urologic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri More articles by this author Sam B. Bhayani Division of Urologic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri Financial interest and/or other relationship with Intuitive Surgical. More articles by this author Craig G. Rogers Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan Financial interest and/or other relationship with Intuitive Surgical. More articles by this author Lori M. Dulabon Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York More articles by this author Manish N. Patel Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan More articles by this author Michael Lipkin Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York More articles by this author Agnes J. Wang Division of Urologic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri More articles by this author Michael D. Stifelman Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York Financial interest and/or other relationship with Intuitive Surgical. More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ..." @default.
• W2135414181 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2135414181 creator A5014140682 @default.
• W2135414181 creator A5016065066 @default.
• W2135414181 creator A5024448104 @default.
• W2135414181 creator A5052944092 @default.
• W2135414181 creator A5057461326 @default.
• W2135414181 creator A5070267507 @default.
• W2135414181 creator A5078387652 @default.
• W2135414181 creator A5085872817 @default.
• W2135414181 date "2009-09-01" @default.
• W2135414181 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2135414181 title "Robot Assisted Partial Nephrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for Renal Tumors: A Multi-Institutional Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes" @default.
• W2135414181 cites W123062468 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W1918015358 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W1970112882 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W1973259395 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W1978361694 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W1983250560 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W1993773761 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W1994076333 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W1999220961 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W2002412023 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W2009694881 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W2026586411 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W2032994944 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W2033348583 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W2041107570 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W2045402937 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W2045635808 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W2049523916 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W2050704087 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W2051006819 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W2053454064 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W2054044872 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W2059580950 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W2072366921 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W2075084346 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W2079198170 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W2079877815 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W2082482112 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W2082505001 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W2083893894 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W2089942531 @default.
• W2135414181 cites W2147684280 @default.
• W2135414181 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.037" @default.
• W2135414181 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19616229" @default.
• W2135414181 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W2135414181 type Work @default.
• W2135414181 sameAs 2135414181 @default.
• W2135414181 citedByCount "449" @default.
• W2135414181 countsByYear W21354141812012 @default.
• W2135414181 countsByYear W21354141812013 @default.
• W2135414181 countsByYear W21354141812014 @default.
• W2135414181 countsByYear W21354141812015 @default.
• W2135414181 countsByYear W21354141812016 @default.
• W2135414181 countsByYear W21354141812017 @default.
• W2135414181 countsByYear W21354141812018 @default.
• W2135414181 countsByYear W21354141812019 @default.
• W2135414181 countsByYear W21354141812020 @default.
• W2135414181 countsByYear W21354141812021 @default.
• W2135414181 countsByYear W21354141812022 @default.
• W2135414181 countsByYear W21354141812023 @default.
• W2135414181 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2135414181 hasAuthorship W2135414181A5014140682 @default.
• W2135414181 hasAuthorship W2135414181A5016065066 @default.
• W2135414181 hasAuthorship W2135414181A5024448104 @default.
• W2135414181 hasAuthorship W2135414181A5052944092 @default.
• W2135414181 hasAuthorship W2135414181A5057461326 @default.
• W2135414181 hasAuthorship W2135414181A5070267507 @default.
• W2135414181 hasAuthorship W2135414181A5078387652 @default.
• W2135414181 hasAuthorship W2135414181A5085872817 @default.
• W2135414181 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2135414181 hasConcept C126894567 @default.
• W2135414181 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2135414181 hasConcept C2780047204 @default.
• W2135414181 hasConcept C2780091579 @default.
• W2135414181 hasConcept C2780227381 @default.
• W2135414181 hasConcept C31174226 @default.
• W2135414181 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2135414181 hasConceptScore W2135414181C126322002 @default.
• W2135414181 hasConceptScore W2135414181C126894567 @default.
• W2135414181 hasConceptScore W2135414181C141071460 @default.
• W2135414181 hasConceptScore W2135414181C2780047204 @default.
• W2135414181 hasConceptScore W2135414181C2780091579 @default.
• W2135414181 hasConceptScore W2135414181C2780227381 @default.
• W2135414181 hasConceptScore W2135414181C31174226 @default.
• W2135414181 hasConceptScore W2135414181C71924100 @default.
• W2135414181 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2135414181 hasLocation W21354141811 @default.
• W2135414181 hasLocation W21354141812 @default.
• W2135414181 hasOpenAccess W2135414181 @default.
• W2135414181 hasPrimaryLocation W21354141811 @default.
• W2135414181 hasRelatedWork W2003938723 @default.
• W2135414181 hasRelatedWork W2041660778 @default.
• W2135414181 hasRelatedWork W2047967234 @default.
• W2135414181 hasRelatedWork W2352247659 @default.
• W2135414181 hasRelatedWork W2354785620 @default.

• next