Tag Archive for: AOTW-18-10-17


Article of the Week: Early surgical outcomes and oncological results of RAPN

Every Week the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Early surgical outcomes and oncological results of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a multicentre study


Rajan Veeratterapillay*, Sanjai K. Addla, Clare Jelley, John Bailie*, David Rix*,Steve Bromage, Neil Oakley, Robin Weston§ and Naeem A. Soomro*


*Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Department of Urology, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, Department of Urology, Stepping Hill Hospital, Stockport, and §Department of Urology, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK




To describe a multicentre experience of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) in northern England, with focus on early surgical outcomes and oncological results.

Patients and Methods

All consecutive patients undergoing RAPN at four tertiary referral centres in northern England in the period 2012–2015 were included for analysis. RAPN was performed via a transperitoneal approach using a standardized technique. Prospective data collection was performed to capture preoperative characteristics (including R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score), and peri-operative and postoperative data, including renal function. Correlations between warm ischaemia time (WIT), positive surgical margin (PSM) rate, complication rates, R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores and learning curve were assessed using univariate and multivariate analyses.


A total of 250 patients (mean age 58.1 ± 13 years, mean ± sd body mass index 27.3 ± 7 kg/m2) were included, with a median (range) follow-up of 12 (3–36) months. The mean ± sd tumour size was 30.6 ± 10 mm, mean R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score was 6.1 ± 2 and 55% of tumours were left-sided. Mean ± sd operating console time was 141 ± 38 min, WIT 16.7 ± 8 min and estimated blood loss 205 ± 145 mL. There were five conversions (2%) to open/radical nephrectomy. The overall complication rate was 16.4% (Clavien I, 1.6%; Clavien II, 8.8%; Clavien III, 6%; Clavien IV/V; 0%). Pathologically, 82.4% of tumours were malignant and the overall PSM rate was 7.3%. The mean ± sd preoperative and immediate postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rates were 92.8 ± 27 and 80.8 ± 27 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively (P = 0.001). In all, 66% of patients remained in the same chronic kidney disease category postoperatively, and none of the patients required dialysis during the study period. ‘Trifecta’ (defined as WIT < 25 min, negative surgical margin status and no peri-operative complications) was achieved in 68.4% of patients overall, but improved with surgeon experience. PSM status and long WIT were significantly associated with early learning curve.


This is the largest multicentre RAPN study in the UK. Initial results show that RAPN is safe and can be performed with minimal morbidity. Early oncological outcomes and renal function preservation data are encouraging.

Editorial: From Novick to the NHS – the evolution of minimally-invasive NSS

The publication in this issue of the BJUI by Veeratterapillay et al. [1] of a UK multicentre study in a community setting marks a watershed in the availability and quality of minimally invasive nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) for renal cancer. Such a turning point was predicted almost 17 years ago by Novick [2] when he wrote, ‘minimally invasive modalities of tumour resection or destruction should be reserved for highly select patients and awaits improvements in technology, standardization of technique and long-term outcomes data before they may be completely integrated options’. It appears now that robot-assisted surgery provides such a platform. The present study [1] describes the outcomes of patients treated with robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) at four centres in Northern England, and shows very good outcomes within their first 250 cases.

The benefits of NSS have been well described. Indeed, excellent outcomes for PN were described over 20 years ago in carefully selected cases, with benefits including reduced incidence of renal insufficiency compared to radical nephrectomy, which until that time had been viewed as the ‘gold-standard’ for patients with RCC [3]. However, the popularity of PN for small renal masses appeared to decline with the advent of laparoscopy. It became apparent that a minimally invasive approach to radical nephrectomy had the advantage of improved recovery, reduced blood loss with equal cancer control to open nephrectomy [4]. Notwithstanding absolute and relative indications for PN, given the choice between an open PN and a laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, the balance for patients with an elective indication for PN was tipped in favour of a minimally invasive yet radical approach [5]. Techniques for PN were in their infancy, and even in the leading high-volume centres outcomes, including warm ischaemia time (WIT) and positive surgical margin (PSM) rate, failed to match those of open surgery [6].

Fast forward to 2017 with the increasing use of robot-assisted urological surgery carrying the advantages of three-dimensional vision, wristed movement and integrated real-time intraoperative imaging, especially beneficial for procedures such as PN where quick and accurate suturing are essential for a successful outcome. Veeratterapillay et al. [1] present a series of 250 patients from centres in the UK, in which each performs <50 RAPN procedures/year, yet the authors present favourable outcomes overall, with a PSM rate of 7.3%, major complications in 6% and trifecta in 68.4%. An impressive learning curve is seen with improving outcomes over the series, such that in the final 50 cases a trifecta (WIT <25 min, negative surgical margin and absence of complications) was achieved in 82% of cases, with a PSM rate of 2% despite increasing complex nephrometry scores, which compares favourably with larger series from internationally renowned centres [6].

So then, with the results of the present study [1], can we say that Novick’s requirements have been met, and that minimally invasive NSS is now a ‘completely integrated option’? Certainly, with the widespread adoption of robot-assisted surgery, high-quality outcomes are within the grasp of centres other than elite academic institutions. As techniques develop and experience grows robot-assisted surgery can be increasingly offered, even for resection of more complex tumours.

To ensure that minimally invasive NSS is delivered to the highest standards, it will be necessary for providers to ensure both quality assurance and quality control in their processes. The learning curve needs to be minimised with structured teaching and mentoring, and the use of adjuncts such as intraoperative ultrasonography or fluorescence should be a routine part of care.

Centres offering this technique should be mindful of the well documented volume–outcome relationship that appears to be ubiquitous among complex surgical procedures. If centres are performing less than an optimum number of cases, they may consider affiliating themselves with other such centres in networks and forming a joint clinical governance programme, as has been described for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and which has shown demonstrable improvements in outcomes.

Finally, auditing and reporting of outcomes remains the cornerstone of quality assurance as shown by the introduction of the BAUS complex surgery audit, which is intended to drive standards of care forward. Publications such as that of Veeratterapillay et al. [1] greatly assist in documenting the progress of new techniques and emerging technologies. Increasingly, patients expect transparency from healthcare providers, and with the necessary support processes in place, such initiatives, and the data that they produce will help to further improve the delivery of complex surgery to patients from all areas of our practice.

Benjamin W. Lamb* and Daniel A. Moon*


*Division of Cance r Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Epworth Healthcare, and Department of Surgery, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia




1 Veeratterapillay R, Addla SK, Jelley C et al. Early surgical outcomes and oncological results of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a multicentre study. BJU Int 2017; 120: 5505


2 Uzzo RG, Novick AC. Nephron sparing surgery for renal tumors: indications, techniques and outcomes. J Urol 2001; 166: 618


3 Polascik TJ, Pound CR, Meng MV, Partin AW, Marshall FF. Partial nephrectomy: technique, complications and pathological ndings. J Urol 1995; 154: 131218


4 Gill IS, Meraney AM, Schweizer DK et al. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in 100 patients. Cancer 2001; 92: 184355


5 Novick AC. Laparoscopic and partial nephrectomy. Clin Cancer Res 2004; 10: 6322S7S



© 2024 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.