Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Retrospective descriptive study over a 10-year period. Anesthetic experience
Abstract
Introduction: Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery is currently the surgical treatment of choice for small renal masses.
Objective: Reviewing the anesthetic management and perioperative morbidity of patients undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RALPN) from 2009 to 2019 at Hospital Universitario Donostia.
Material and methods: Retrospective, descriptive, observational study involving 343 patients.
Results: 95 % of the patients were ASA II-III. Transient renal artery clamping was performed in 91 %, with a mean ischemia time of 17.79 minutes. The mean duration of the procedure under balanced general anesthesia was 184 min. Standard monitoring was performed along with invasive arterial pressure monitoring (IAP), central venous catheter (CVC) and EV1000 platform (Edwards®) for complex patients. Complications were recorded in 40 patients (11.67 %). Patients under anti-aggregation therapy experienced more bleeding than non-anti-aggregation patients (p 0.04) but did not require more transfusions. Patients with a higher anesthetic risk did not experience more complications. No statistically significant association was found between worsening renal function and the occurrence of intraoperative complications. 21 patients (6 %) were readmitted due to complications; the most frequent complication was renal artery pseudoaneurysm that required endovascular embolization.
Conclusions: It should be highlighted that after ten years of experience with this technique, the patients with a higher anesthetic risk have not experienced serious perioperative complications. RALPN is a safe technique that demands a careful anesthetic support. A robot-assisted approach alone is not a guarantee for success without strong teamwork.
References
Redecan.org. Estimaciones de la incidencia del cáncer en España, 2020 [internet]. Madrid: Red Española de Registros de Cáncer; 2020. [citado 2021 ene 12]. Disponible en: https://redecan.org/redecan.org/es/Informe_incidencia_REDECAN_2020.pdf
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(1):7-30. doi: https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21590
Siemer S, Hack M, Lehmann J, Becker F, Stöckle M. Outcome of renal tumors in young adults. J Urol. 2006;175(4):1240-4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00696-8
Thompson RH, Ordonez MA, Iasonos A, Secin FP, Guillonneau B, Russo P, et al. Renal cell carcinoma in young and old patients—is there a difference? J Urol. 2008;180(4):1262-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.06.037
Kane CJ, Mallin K, Ritchey J, Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Renal cell cancer stage migration: Analysis of the National Cancer Data Base. Cancer. 2008;113(1):78-83. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23518
Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Daignault S, Hollenbeck BK. Rising incidence of small renal masses: A need to reassess treatment effect. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(18):1331-4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djj362
Summet G, Priya A, Berend M. Anestesia en cirugía robótica. Miller, anestesia [Internet]. 2016. Capítulo 87, 2578-2594. [citado 2021 ene 12]. Disponible en: https://www.clinicalkey.com/meded/content/toc/3-s2.0-C2014104330X
Furukawa J, Kanayama H, Azuma H, Inoue K, Kobayashi Y, Kashiwagi A, et al. ‘Trifecta’ outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a large Japanese multicenter study. Int J Clin Oncol. 2020; 25(2):347-53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-019-01565-0
Cacciamani GE, Gill T, Medina L, Ashrafi A, Winter M, Sotelo R, et al. Impact of host factors on robotic partial nephrectomy outcomes: Comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2018; 200(4):716-30. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.04.079
Yu YD, Nguyen NH, Ryu HY, Hong SK, Byun S, Lee S. Predictors of renal function after open and robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy: A propensity score‐matched study. Int J Urol. 2019; 26(3):377-84. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.13879
Spana G, Haber G-P, Dulabon LM, Petros F, Rogers CG, Bhayani SB, et al. Complications after robotic partial nephrectomy at centers of excellence: multi-institutional analysis of 450 cases. J Urol. 2011;186(2):417-22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.03.127
Herling SF, Dreijer B, Wrist Lam G, Thomsen T, Møller AM. Total intravenous anaesthesia versus inhalational anaesthesia for adults undergoing transabdominal robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery. Cochrane Anaesthesia, Critical and Emergency Care Group, editor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011387.pub2
Lee HJ, Bae J, Kwon Y, Jang HS, Yoo S, Jeong CW, Kim JT, Kim WH. General anesthetic agents and renal function after nephrectomy. J Clin Med. 2019;8(10):1530. doi: http://www.doi.org/10.3390/jcm8101530.
On behalf of Società Italiana di Anestesia Analgesia Rianimazione e Terapia Intensiva (SIAARTI), Società Italiana di Ginecologia e Ostetricia (SIGO), and Società Italiana di Urologia (SIU), Aceto P, Beretta L, Cariello C, Claroni C, Esposito C, et al. Joint consensus on anesthesia in urologic and gynecologic robotic surgery: specific issues in management from a task force of the SIAARTI, SIGO, and SIU. Minerva Anestesiol. 2019;85(8). doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8101530
Hsu RL, Kaye AD, Urman RD. Anesthetic challenges in robotic-assisted urologic surgery. Rev Urol. 2013;15(4):178-84.
Downloads
| Article metrics | |
|---|---|
| Abstract views | |
| Galley vies | |
| PDF Views | |
| HTML views | |
| Other views | |
