Scholarlink

Objective <p>To compare perioperative outcomes of retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (rRAPN) performed in the prone (prRAPN) versus lateral (lrRAPN) position.</p> Methods <p>We reviewed 167 patients with clinically localized (cT1–2) renal masses treated with rRAPN at a high-volume tertiary center (prRAPN, n = 87; lrRAPN, n = 80). To account for baseline differences, 1:1 propensity-score matching (PSM) was performed.</p> Results <p>After matching, 58 patients were included per group with balanced baseline characteristics. prRAPN achieved shorter hilar access time (HAT: 5.3 vs. 12.0&#xa0;min; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001), operation time (OT: 41.3 vs. 72.8&#xa0;min; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001), warm ischemia time (WIT: 18.5 vs. 25.0&#xa0;min; <i>P</i> = 0.012) and renorrhaphy time (RT: 9.0 vs. 13.5&#xa0;min; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001), with lower estimated blood loss, and shorter postoperative length of stay than lrRAPN. 90-day cumulative complications, trifecta achievement, postoperative 3-day change in hemoglobin, postoperative 1-year change in eGFR and intraoperative cardiopulmonary parameters were similar. On multivariable analysis, prRAPN independently predicted shorter OT and WIT, whereas higher R.E.N.A.L. score predicted prolongation. Subgroup analyses showed that HAT was shorter across all subgroups, with potential greater intraoperative efficiency gains (shorter OT, WIT and RT) in patients with BMI &lt; 28&#xa0;kg/m<sup>2</sup>, R.E.N.A.L. &lt; 10, and posterior tumors. Median follow-up was 20.4&#xa0;months for prRAPN and 38.9&#xa0;months for lrRAPN, with no difference in PFS and OS. Limitations include the retrospective, single-center design.</p> Conclusions <p>prRAPN was as safe as lrRAPN and improved intraoperative efficiency. Potential benefit appeared greater in non-obese patients and in low–intermediate complexity or posterior tumors, for whom prRAPN may be preferred.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Prone retroperitoneal versus lateral retroperitoneal robotic assisted partial nephrectomy: a propensity score-matched comparison

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月25日

查看全文
  • Xiao Yang,
  • Haonan Chen,
  • Hao Yu,
  • Nian Liu,
  • Zhengye Tan,
  • Lingkai Cai,
  • Juntao Zhuang,
  • Rongjie Bai,
  • Jie Li,
  • Pengfei Shao,
  • Pengchao Li,
  • Qiang Cao,
  • Qiang Lu

摘要

Objective

To compare perioperative outcomes of retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (rRAPN) performed in the prone (prRAPN) versus lateral (lrRAPN) position.

Methods

We reviewed 167 patients with clinically localized (cT1–2) renal masses treated with rRAPN at a high-volume tertiary center (prRAPN, n = 87; lrRAPN, n = 80). To account for baseline differences, 1:1 propensity-score matching (PSM) was performed.

Results

After matching, 58 patients were included per group with balanced baseline characteristics. prRAPN achieved shorter hilar access time (HAT: 5.3 vs. 12.0 min; P < 0.001), operation time (OT: 41.3 vs. 72.8 min; P < 0.001), warm ischemia time (WIT: 18.5 vs. 25.0 min; P = 0.012) and renorrhaphy time (RT: 9.0 vs. 13.5 min; P < 0.001), with lower estimated blood loss, and shorter postoperative length of stay than lrRAPN. 90-day cumulative complications, trifecta achievement, postoperative 3-day change in hemoglobin, postoperative 1-year change in eGFR and intraoperative cardiopulmonary parameters were similar. On multivariable analysis, prRAPN independently predicted shorter OT and WIT, whereas higher R.E.N.A.L. score predicted prolongation. Subgroup analyses showed that HAT was shorter across all subgroups, with potential greater intraoperative efficiency gains (shorter OT, WIT and RT) in patients with BMI < 28 kg/m2, R.E.N.A.L. < 10, and posterior tumors. Median follow-up was 20.4 months for prRAPN and 38.9 months for lrRAPN, with no difference in PFS and OS. Limitations include the retrospective, single-center design.

Conclusions

prRAPN was as safe as lrRAPN and improved intraoperative efficiency. Potential benefit appeared greater in non-obese patients and in low–intermediate complexity or posterior tumors, for whom prRAPN may be preferred.