Radical nephrectomy performed by open, laparoscopy with or without hand-assistance or Robotic methods by the same surgeon produces comparable perioperative results

Tanya Nazemi, Anton Galich, Samuel Sterrett, Douglas Klingler, Lynette M Smith, K. C. Balaji

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

42 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Radical nephrectomy can be performed using open or laparoscopic (with or without hand assistance) methods, and most recently using the da Vinci Surgical Robotic System. We evaluated the perioperative outcomes using a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing radical nephrectomy by one of the above 4 methods performed by the same surgeon. Materials and methods: The relevant clinical information on 57 consecutive patients undergoing radical nephrectomy from September 2000 until July 2004 by a single surgeon was entered in a Microsoft Access Database™ and queried. Following appropriate statistical analysis, p values < 0.05 were considered significant. Results: Of 57 patients, the open, robotic, laparoscopy with or without hand assistance radical nephrectomy were performed in 18, 6, 21, and 12 patients, respectively. The age, sex, body mass index (BMI), incidence of malignancy, specimen and tumor size, tumor stage, Fuhrman grade, hospital stay, change in postoperative creatinine, drop in hemoglobin, and perioperative complications were not significantly different between the methods. While the estimated median blood loss, postoperative narcotic use for pain control, and hospital stay were significantly higher in the open surgery method (p < 0.05), the median operative time was significantly shorter compared to the robotic method (p = 0.02). Operating room costs were significantly higher in the robotic and laparoscopic groups; however, there was no significant difference in total hospital costs between the 4 groups. Conclusions: The study demon strates that radical nephrectomy can be safely performed either by open, robotic, or laparoscopic with or without hand assistance methods without significant difference in perioperative complication rates. A larger cohort and longer follow up are needed to validate our findings and establish oncological outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)15-22
Number of pages8
JournalInternational Braz J Urol
Volume32
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2006

Fingerprint

Robotics
Nephrectomy
Laparoscopy
Hand
Length of Stay
Postoperative Hemorrhage
Neoplasms
Hospital Costs
Narcotics
Operating Rooms
Operative Time
Surgeons
Creatinine
Hemoglobins
Body Mass Index
Databases
Costs and Cost Analysis
Pain
Incidence

Keywords

  • Kidney neoplasms
  • Laparoscopy
  • Nephrectomy
  • Operative
  • Robotic
  • Surgical procedures

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Radical nephrectomy performed by open, laparoscopy with or without hand-assistance or Robotic methods by the same surgeon produces comparable perioperative results. / Nazemi, Tanya; Galich, Anton; Sterrett, Samuel; Klingler, Douglas; Smith, Lynette M; Balaji, K. C.

In: International Braz J Urol, Vol. 32, No. 1, 01.01.2006, p. 15-22.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{923d0c3fc202486e8a43872bb71fdb16,
title = "Radical nephrectomy performed by open, laparoscopy with or without hand-assistance or Robotic methods by the same surgeon produces comparable perioperative results",
abstract = "Purpose: Radical nephrectomy can be performed using open or laparoscopic (with or without hand assistance) methods, and most recently using the da Vinci Surgical Robotic System. We evaluated the perioperative outcomes using a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing radical nephrectomy by one of the above 4 methods performed by the same surgeon. Materials and methods: The relevant clinical information on 57 consecutive patients undergoing radical nephrectomy from September 2000 until July 2004 by a single surgeon was entered in a Microsoft Access Database™ and queried. Following appropriate statistical analysis, p values < 0.05 were considered significant. Results: Of 57 patients, the open, robotic, laparoscopy with or without hand assistance radical nephrectomy were performed in 18, 6, 21, and 12 patients, respectively. The age, sex, body mass index (BMI), incidence of malignancy, specimen and tumor size, tumor stage, Fuhrman grade, hospital stay, change in postoperative creatinine, drop in hemoglobin, and perioperative complications were not significantly different between the methods. While the estimated median blood loss, postoperative narcotic use for pain control, and hospital stay were significantly higher in the open surgery method (p < 0.05), the median operative time was significantly shorter compared to the robotic method (p = 0.02). Operating room costs were significantly higher in the robotic and laparoscopic groups; however, there was no significant difference in total hospital costs between the 4 groups. Conclusions: The study demon strates that radical nephrectomy can be safely performed either by open, robotic, or laparoscopic with or without hand assistance methods without significant difference in perioperative complication rates. A larger cohort and longer follow up are needed to validate our findings and establish oncological outcomes.",
keywords = "Kidney neoplasms, Laparoscopy, Nephrectomy, Operative, Robotic, Surgical procedures",
author = "Tanya Nazemi and Anton Galich and Samuel Sterrett and Douglas Klingler and Smith, {Lynette M} and Balaji, {K. C.}",
year = "2006",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1590/S1677-55382006000100003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "15--22",
journal = "International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology",
issn = "1677-5538",
publisher = "Brazilian Society of Urology",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Radical nephrectomy performed by open, laparoscopy with or without hand-assistance or Robotic methods by the same surgeon produces comparable perioperative results

AU - Nazemi, Tanya

AU - Galich, Anton

AU - Sterrett, Samuel

AU - Klingler, Douglas

AU - Smith, Lynette M

AU - Balaji, K. C.

PY - 2006/1/1

Y1 - 2006/1/1

N2 - Purpose: Radical nephrectomy can be performed using open or laparoscopic (with or without hand assistance) methods, and most recently using the da Vinci Surgical Robotic System. We evaluated the perioperative outcomes using a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing radical nephrectomy by one of the above 4 methods performed by the same surgeon. Materials and methods: The relevant clinical information on 57 consecutive patients undergoing radical nephrectomy from September 2000 until July 2004 by a single surgeon was entered in a Microsoft Access Database™ and queried. Following appropriate statistical analysis, p values < 0.05 were considered significant. Results: Of 57 patients, the open, robotic, laparoscopy with or without hand assistance radical nephrectomy were performed in 18, 6, 21, and 12 patients, respectively. The age, sex, body mass index (BMI), incidence of malignancy, specimen and tumor size, tumor stage, Fuhrman grade, hospital stay, change in postoperative creatinine, drop in hemoglobin, and perioperative complications were not significantly different between the methods. While the estimated median blood loss, postoperative narcotic use for pain control, and hospital stay were significantly higher in the open surgery method (p < 0.05), the median operative time was significantly shorter compared to the robotic method (p = 0.02). Operating room costs were significantly higher in the robotic and laparoscopic groups; however, there was no significant difference in total hospital costs between the 4 groups. Conclusions: The study demon strates that radical nephrectomy can be safely performed either by open, robotic, or laparoscopic with or without hand assistance methods without significant difference in perioperative complication rates. A larger cohort and longer follow up are needed to validate our findings and establish oncological outcomes.

AB - Purpose: Radical nephrectomy can be performed using open or laparoscopic (with or without hand assistance) methods, and most recently using the da Vinci Surgical Robotic System. We evaluated the perioperative outcomes using a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing radical nephrectomy by one of the above 4 methods performed by the same surgeon. Materials and methods: The relevant clinical information on 57 consecutive patients undergoing radical nephrectomy from September 2000 until July 2004 by a single surgeon was entered in a Microsoft Access Database™ and queried. Following appropriate statistical analysis, p values < 0.05 were considered significant. Results: Of 57 patients, the open, robotic, laparoscopy with or without hand assistance radical nephrectomy were performed in 18, 6, 21, and 12 patients, respectively. The age, sex, body mass index (BMI), incidence of malignancy, specimen and tumor size, tumor stage, Fuhrman grade, hospital stay, change in postoperative creatinine, drop in hemoglobin, and perioperative complications were not significantly different between the methods. While the estimated median blood loss, postoperative narcotic use for pain control, and hospital stay were significantly higher in the open surgery method (p < 0.05), the median operative time was significantly shorter compared to the robotic method (p = 0.02). Operating room costs were significantly higher in the robotic and laparoscopic groups; however, there was no significant difference in total hospital costs between the 4 groups. Conclusions: The study demon strates that radical nephrectomy can be safely performed either by open, robotic, or laparoscopic with or without hand assistance methods without significant difference in perioperative complication rates. A larger cohort and longer follow up are needed to validate our findings and establish oncological outcomes.

KW - Kidney neoplasms

KW - Laparoscopy

KW - Nephrectomy

KW - Operative

KW - Robotic

KW - Surgical procedures

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33645322144&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33645322144&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1590/S1677-55382006000100003

DO - 10.1590/S1677-55382006000100003

M3 - Article

C2 - 16519823

AN - SCOPUS:33645322144

VL - 32

SP - 15

EP - 22

JO - International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology

JF - International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology

SN - 1677-5538

IS - 1

ER -