The Nephrometry Score: Is It Effective for Predicting Perioperative Outcome During Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy?

PURPOSE: Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) has emerged as an alternative treatment for the management of small renal masses. This study was designed to investigate parameters that predict perioperative outcomes during RPN. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 113 patients who underwent RPN between September 2008 and May 2012 at the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. Clinical parameters, including warm ischemia time (WIT), estimated blood loss (EBL), and R.E.N.A.L and PADUA scores, were evaluated to predict perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 113 patients, 81 were men and 32 were women. The patients' mean age was 53.5 years, and their mean body mass index was 22.3 kg/m2. Age, gender, and mass laterality had no effect on perioperative complications, WIT, or EBL. Univariate analysis revealed that a distance between the tumor and the collecting system of 4 cm were associated with adverse profiles of complications, WIT, and EBL. However, multivariate analysis showed no association between the predictive parameters and tumor complexity as assessed by nephrometry scores. Tumor size of >4 cm increased the risk of blood loss >300 mL (odds ratio [OR], 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3.9.7; p=0.016). A distance between the tumor and the collecting system of < or =4 mm was associated with increased risk of WIT exceeding 20 minutes (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3.6.3; p=0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Tumor size and proximity of the mass to the collecting system showed significant associations with EBL and WIT, respectively, during RPN. The R.E.N.A.L and PADUA nephrometry scoring systems did not predict perioperative outcomes.

Comparison of Continence Recovery Between Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy and Open Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy: A Single Surgeon Experience

PURPOSE: To evaluate the recovery of continence after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 258 patients who underwent surgery by a single surgeon to treat localized prostate cancer. The patients were divided into two groups according to operative method. In group 1, 146 consecutive patients underwent RALP, and in group 2, 112 patients underwent RRP. To compare the interval until the return of urinary continence between the two groups, we used the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses. RESULTS: Differences between the two groups were found in mean estimated blood loss (EBL; p<0.001) and the rate of nerve sparing (p=0.004). When continence was defined as the use of 0 to 1 pad per day, 100% of group 1 and 98.2% of group 2 reported continence at 12 months (p=0.189). When continence was defined as no pad use, however, there was a significant difference between the two groups at 12 months: group 1, 95.7%, and group 2, 70.7% (p<0.001). The factors affecting time until no pad use in the univariate analysis with a Cox proportional hazards model were operation method, age, neurovascular bundle saving, membranous urethral length (MUL), EBL, and apical shape. In the multivariate analysis, only operation method, age, and MUL retained significance. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that RALP is an independent factor for the recovery of continence and that RALP has advantages for postoperative continence recovery and the quality of continence compared with RRP.