Conversion to Radical Nephrectomy From Robotic Partial Nephrectomy Is Most Commonly Due to Anatomic and Oncologic Complexity.

PURPOSE: Partial nephrectomy is standard-of-care treatment for small renal masses. As utilization of partial nephrectomy increases and includes larger and complex tumors, the risk of conversion to radical nephrectomy likely increases. We evaluated incidence and reason for conversion to radical nephrectomy in patients scheduled for partial nephrectomy by surgeons participating in MUSIC (the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients in whom robotic partial nephrectomy was planned were stratified by completed procedure (robotic partial nephrectomy vs radical nephrectomy). Preoperative and intraoperative records were reviewed for preoperative assessment of difficulty and reason for conversion. Patient, tumor, pathologic, and practice variables were compared between cohorts. RESULTS: Of 650 patients scheduled for robotic partial nephrectomy, conversion to radical nephrectomy occurred in 27 (4.2%) patients. No conversions to open were reported. Preoperative documentation indicated a plan for possible conversion in 18 (67%) patients including partial with possible radical (n = 8), partial vs radical (n = 6), or likely radical nephrectomy (n = 4). Intraoperative documentation indicated that only 5 (19%) conversions were secondary to bleeding, with the remaining conversions due to tumor complexity and/or oncologic concerns. Patients undergoing conversion had larger (4.7 vs 2.8 cm, P < .001) and higher-complexity tumors (64% vs 6%, P < .001) with R.E.N.A.L. (for radius, exophytic/endophytic, nearness of tumor to collecting system, anterior/posterior, location relative to polar line) nephrometry score ≥ 10. The converted cases had a higher rate of ≥ pT3 (27% vs 8.4%, P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: There was a low rate of conversion from robotic partial to radical nephrectomy in the MUSIC-KIDNEY (Kidney mass: Identifying and Defining Necessary Evaluation and therapY) collaborative, and an even lower risk of conversion due to uncontrolled bleeding. Targeted review of each conversion identified appropriate decision-making based on oncologic risk in most cases.

Daily Ecological Momentary Assessments of Pain and Ability to Work After Ureteroscopy and Stenting.

Introduction: Ureteral stents can cause significant patient discomfort, yet the temporal dynamics and impact on activities remain poorly characterized. We employed an automated tool to collect daily ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) regarding pain and the ability to work following ureteroscopy with stenting. Our aims were to assess feasibility and better characterize the postoperative patient experience. Materials and Methods: As an exploratory endpoint within an ongoing clinical trial, patients undergoing ureteroscopy with stenting were asked to complete daily EMAs for 10 days postoperatively or until the stent was removed. Questionnaires were distributed through text messages and included a pain scale (0-10) and a single item from the validated Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities instrument, as well as days missed from work or school. Results: Among the first 65 trial participants, 59 completed at least 1 EMA (overall response rate 91%). Response rates were >85% for each time point through postoperative day (POD)10. Median respondent age was 58 years (interquartile range [IQR] 50-67), and 56% were female. Stones were 54% renal and 46% ureteral, with a median diameter of 9 mm (IQR 7-10). Median stent dwell time was 7 days (IQR 6-8). Pain scores were highest on POD1 (median score 4) and declined on each subsequent day, reaching a median score of 2 on POD5. Sixty-three percent of patients on POD1 reported that they had trouble performing their usual work at least sometimes, but by POD5, this was <50% of patients. Patients who work or attend school reported a median of 1 day missed (IQR 0-2). Conclusions: An automated daily EMA system for capturing patient-reported outcomes was demonstrated to be feasible with sustained excellent engagement. Patients with stents reported the worst pain and interference with work on POD1, with steady improvements thereafter, and by POD5, the majority of patients had minimal pain or trouble performing their usual work. This work is associated with a registered clinical trial [NCT05026710].