Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 19, 2026
Robot-assisted Partial Splenectomy
Published on: January 2, 2026
Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison of short-term outcomes
Sammy E Elsamra1, Andrew R Leone, Michael S Lasser
1Division of Urology, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02905, USA.
Introduction:
Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RALPN) and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) have become standard for the surgical management of small renal masses (SRMs). However, no studies have evaluated the short-term outcomes or cost of RALPN as compared with hand-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (HALPN) in a standardized fashion.
Methods:
A retrospective review of all patients who underwent HALPN or RALPN from 2006 to 2010 were assessed for patient age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, radiographic tumor size, nephrometry (radius, endo/exophytic, nearness to collecting system, anterior/posterior, lines of polarity [RENAL]) scores, operative and room times, hospital length of stay (LOS), estimated blood loss (EBL), requirement of hilar vessel clamping, warm ischemia time (WIT), pre- and postprocedural creatinine and hemoglobin levels, and complications. Total costs of the procedures were estimated based on operating room component (operative staff time, anesthesia, and supply) and hospital stay cost (room and board, pharmacy). A robotic premium cost, estimated based on the yearly overall cost of the da Vinci S surgical system divided by the annual number of cases, was included in the RALPN cost. Cost figures were obtained from hospital administration and applied to the mean HALPN and RALPN patient.
Results:
Forty-seven patients underwent HALPN since 2006 and 21 patients underwent RALPN since 2008. ASA, BMI, EBL, tumor size, nephrometry score, positive margin rate, change in creatinine, change in hemoglobin, morphine equivalents used, and complication rate were all similar in both groups (p>0.05). Room time and operative time were significantly shorter for the HALPN cohort (p=0.001) whereas LOS was significantly shorter in the RALPN cohort (p=0.019). Despite the shorter LOS, RALPN was associated with a $1165 increased cost, mainly due to increased operating room time and premium cost of the robot.
Conclusions:
While early in our experience, RALPN offered no significant advantage in short-term outcomes over HALPN and was associated with an increased cost of over $1150.
