Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: Current review of the technique and literature.
OBJECTIVE
To visit the operative technique and to review the current published English literature on the technique, and outcomes following robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RPN).


METHODS
We searched the published English literature and the PubMed(()) for published series of 'robotic partial nephrectomy' (RPN) using the keywords; robot, robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy and laparoscopic surgery.


RESULTS
The search yielded 15 major selected series of 'robotic partial nephrectomy'; these were reviewed, tracked and analysed in order to determine the current status and role of RPN in the management of early renal neoplasm(s), as a minimally invasive surgical alternative to open partial nephrectomy. A review of the initial peri-operative outcome of the 350 cases of select series of RPN reported in published English literature revealed a mean operating time, warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss and hospital stay, of 191 minutes, 25 minutes, 162 ml and 2.95 days, respectively. The overall computed mean complication rate of RPN in the present select series was about 7.4%.


CONCLUSIONS
RPN is a safe, feasible and effective minimally invasive surgical alternative to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for early stage (T(1)) renal neoplasm(s). It has acceptable initial renal functional outcomes without the increased risk of major complications in experienced hands. Prospective randomised, controlled, comparative clinical trials with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) are the need of the day. While the initial oncological outcomes of RPN appear to be favourable, long-term data is awaited.
Singh
Iqbal
I
Department of Urology, Wake Forest University Medical School and Baptist Medical Centre, Medical Centre Boulevard, Winston Salem - 27157, North Carolina, USA.
J Endourol. 2008 May;22(5):947-52
18397157
J Endourol. 1993 Dec;7(6):521-6
8124349
Eur Urol. 2009 May;55(5):1163-9
19185415
J Endourol. 2008 Dec;22(12):2657-9
19025387
BJU Int. 2008 Jul;102(1):86-92
18336600
Urology. 2009 Oct;74(4):735-40
19616827
BJU Int. 2005 Mar;95 Suppl 2:35-40
15720333
BJU Int. 2007 Oct;100(4):967-70
17822478
J Urol. 2000 Mar;163(3):730-6
10687966
J Endourol. 2008 Nov;22(11):2485-93
18928387
Eur Urol. 2007 Jan;51(1):186-91; discussion 191-2
16822607
J Endourol. 2009 Jan;23(1):115-21
19178173
J Urol. 2006 Jul;176(1):36-9
16753361
J Urol. 2008 Dec;180(6):2353-6; discussion 2356
18930263
J Endourol. 2008 Aug;22(8):1677-80
18721046
J Endourol. 2005 May;19(4):441-5; discussion 445
15910252
J Urol. 2004 Dec;172(6 Pt 1):2287-91
15538250
Eur Urol. 2008 Mar;53(3):514-21
17961910
Urology. 2009 Feb;73(2):302-5
19038432
BJU Int. 2007 Aug;100(2):375-8
17617142
BJU Int. 2009 Mar;103(5):663-8
18990172
Am J Nephrol. 2008;28(3):438-45
18097136
Urology. 2007 Jan;69(1):44-8
17270611
J Urol. 2009 Feb;181(2):823-8; discussion 828-9
19110277
J Urol. 1994 Nov;152(5 Pt 1):1539-42
7933195
Urology. 2009 Feb;73(2):306-10
19038419
J Urol. 2009 Sep;182(3):866-72
19616229
Urology. 2000 Jul;56(1):58-62
10869624
Curr Opin Urol. 2006 Sep;16(5):327-31
16905976
Urology. 2004 Nov;64(5):914-8
15533477
JSLS. 2006 Jul-Sep;10(3):302-6
17212884
J Endourol. 2009 Sep;23(9):1491-7
19694519
J Robot Surg. 2008 Sep;2(3):141-3
27628250