Repeat Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: Characteristics, Complications, and Renal Functional Outcomes
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 14, 2026
Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
Published on: May 19, 2022
Matthew J Watson1, Abhinav Sidana1, Annerleim Walton Diaz1
11 Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland.
Introduction:
Multifocal and hereditary kidney cancers often require repeated ipsilateral nephron sparing procedures with higher blood loss and complication rates compared to first time renal surgery. Consequently, many surgeons avoid minimally invasive techniques in the setting. We present the characteristics, complications, and short-term renal functional outcomes of patients who underwent a repeat robotic partial nephrectomy (rRPNx).
Materials And Methods:
A database was retrospectively reviewed to identify patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomies between January 2007 and December 2013. Selection criteria for the rRPNx cohort included patients who had undergone at least two ipsilateral renal surgeries, with the second procedure being an rRPNx. All other patients comprised the initial robotic partial nephrectomy (iRPNx) group.
Results:
One hundred twenty-four patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy during the study period were identified. rRPNx constituted 26 (21%) of the total cases. Age of the rRPNx cohort was similar (p = 0.56), but number of tumors resected was two-fold greater in the rRPNx group (p = 0.44). Neither surgery time nor renal clamp time was significantly longer in either group (p = 0.18 and p = 0.65, respectively). Importantly, estimated blood loss (EBL) was significantly larger than in the iRPNx group (p = 0.01). Both groups had similar intravenous pain medication administration durations (p = 0.32), but postsurgical length of stay was greater for the rRPNx patients (p = 0.011). There were no significant differences in clavian complication rates (p = 0.17-0.39), with the exception of urine leak which occurred more frequently in the rRPNx group (p = 0.01). There was no difference in percent change in serum creatinine or estimated glomerular filtration rate (p = 0.89 and p = 0.67, respectively).
Conclusions:
rRPNx is safe and feasible in select patients. EBL, postoperative lengths of stay, and urine leak were the only factors significantly associated with rRPNx compared to iRPNx. Patient 3-month follow-up revealed excellent and comparable outcomes between the two groups.
