2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.11.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Open and Robot Assisted Radical Nephrectomy With Level I and II Inferior Vena Cava Tumor Thrombus: The Mayo Clinic Experience

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
22
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
2
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Various distinct features of robotic platforms may be beneficial in tackling demanding surgical procedures, 3 which are usually handled with open surgery, such as the management of tumors involving large vessels. In fact, there have been some reports describing promising findings on RARN and inferior vena cava thrombectomy, 20,21 suggesting the usefulness of a robotic approach for this type of surgery by facilitating easier vessel reconstruction and minimizing caval manipulation. Furthermore, in the present series, one tumor accompanied by a renal vein thrombus was successfully resected using the ENDOWRIST robotic stapler.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Various distinct features of robotic platforms may be beneficial in tackling demanding surgical procedures, 3 which are usually handled with open surgery, such as the management of tumors involving large vessels. In fact, there have been some reports describing promising findings on RARN and inferior vena cava thrombectomy, 20,21 suggesting the usefulness of a robotic approach for this type of surgery by facilitating easier vessel reconstruction and minimizing caval manipulation. Furthermore, in the present series, one tumor accompanied by a renal vein thrombus was successfully resected using the ENDOWRIST robotic stapler.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With the development of robot-assisted surgical techniques in urological surgery, the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted IVC thrombectomy for selected patients have previously been demonstrated. For level I-II IVC tumor thrombus, the Mayo Clinic experience showed that [18], compared with open surgery, robotic surgery had a longer operative time (284 minutes compared with 242 minutes), lower estimated blood loss (450 ml compared with 1800 ml), shorter length of stay in hospital (3 days compared with 7 days), and a lower complication rate (17% compared with 43%) [8]. In a previously reported preliminary study, we showed that robot-assisted IVC thrombectomy had a shorter operative time (150 minutes compared with 230 minutes), a lower estimated blood loss (250 ml compared with 1000 ml), a shorter length of stay in hospital (5 days compared with 9 days), and lower complication rate (9.7% compared with 29%) when compared with the open approach [19].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Gu et al [30] also observed that robotic cohort had a comparable OS and TSS with open cohort in a propensity-matched cohort study after a median follow-up of 27 mon and 48 mon respectively. Rose et al [29] reported that there was no statistically significant difference in OS and recurrence-free survival between robotic procedure and open procedure. However, in our study we found that LRN-VT was associated with a lower risk of local recurrence and the median LRFS was much longer in the LRN-VT group than that in the ORN-VT group.…”
Section: Lrn-vt(n = 94) Orn-vt(n = 94) P Valuementioning
confidence: 99%
“…These findings supported that LRN-VT had greater advantages in surgical outcomes over ORN-VT. RALRN-VT has been clinically applied in several centers since its first report in 2011 [4,[26][27][28]. Kyle et al [29] compared the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of level I-II thrombus between RALRN-VT and ORN-VT and found that RALRN-VT produced shorter hospital stay, less transfusion and a lower complication rate with no statistically significant difference in OS. Gu et al [30] concluded that RALRN-VT can achieve more favorable perioperative outcomes and similar oncologic outcomes compared with ORN-VT.…”
Section: Lrn-vt(n = 94) Orn-vt(n = 94) P Valuementioning
confidence: 99%