Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 13, 2026
Single Port Donor Nephrectomy
Published on: March 12, 2011
[Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a single institution experience]
D Chaste1, J-P Couapel, T Fardoun
1Service d'urologie, hôpital Pontchaillou, CHU de Rennes, 2, rue Henri-Le-Guilloux, 35033 Rennes, France. damienchaste@gmail.com
Objective:
To compare perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) in a single French institution.
Patients:
Between February 2008 and April 2012, 98 patients underwent RAPN (n=54) or NPL (n=44) for a kidney tumor. Demographic data, perioperative and pathological outcomes were compared using Student's test and χ2 for continuous and categorical variables, respectively.
Results:
Both groups were comparable for age, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (ASA) and preoperative renal function (MDRD clearance). Tumor complexity was increased in the RAPN group (55.5 % vs. 29.5 % RENAL score≥2, P=0.05). There was no significant difference in terms of operative time (191 vs. 202 min, P=0.2), tumor size (35 vs. 30mm, P=0.1) or positive margins (2 vs. 5, P=0.14). However, there was a significant decrease in warm ischemia time (18 vs. 25.6 min, P=0.004) and hospital stay (5.1 vs. 6.9 days, P=0.003) for RAPN. Estimated blood loss was greater in the RAPN group (490 vs. 280mL, P=0.003), but the numbers of transfusions were similar (5 vs. 4 patients, P=0.96). Urinary tract was more frequently entered in the RAPN group (28 vs. 12, P=0.009). The complication rate was similar in both groups (28 % vs. 32 %, P=0.66).
Conclusion:
RAPN is feasible and reproducible. As in previous publications, our study confirms a potential benefit of RAPN concerning warm ischemia.
