Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMoon, Daniel-
dc.contributor.otherSharma, Gopal-
dc.contributor.otherShah, Milap-
dc.contributor.otherAhluwalia, Puneet-
dc.contributor.otherDasgupta, Dasgupta-
dc.contributor.otherChallacombe, Benjamin-
dc.contributor.otherBhandari, Mahendra-
dc.contributor.otherAhlawat, Rajesh-
dc.contributor.otherRawal, Sudhir-
dc.contributor.otherBuffi, Nicolo-
dc.contributor.otherSivaraman, Ananthkrishnan-
dc.contributor.otherPorter, James-
dc.contributor.otherRogers, Craig-
dc.contributor.otherMottrie, Alexandre-
dc.contributor.otherAbaza, Ronney-
dc.contributor.otherHo Rha, Khoon-
dc.contributor.otherYuvaraja, Thyavihally-
dc.contributor.otherParekh, Dipen-
dc.contributor.otherCapitanio, Umberto-
dc.contributor.otherMaes, Kris-
dc.contributor.otherPorpiglia, Francesco-
dc.contributor.otherTurkeri, Levent-
dc.contributor.otherGautam, Gagan-
dc.identifier.citationWorld J Urol . 2022 Jul 22en_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: To compare perioperative outcomes following retroperitoneal (RPRAPN) and transperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (TPRAPN). Methods: With this Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative (VCQI) database, study propensity scores were calculated according to the surgical access (TPRAPN and RPRAPN) for the following independent variables, i.e., age, sex, side of the surgery, RENAL nephrometry scores (RNS), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and serum creatinine. The study's primary outcome was the comparison of trifecta between the two groups. Results: In this study, 309 patients who underwent RPRAPN were matched with 309 patients who underwent TPRAPN. The two groups matched well for age, sex, tumor side, polar location of the tumor, RNS, preoperative creatinine and eGFR. Operative time and warm ischemia time were significantly shorter with RPRAPN. Intraoperative blood loss and need for blood transfusion were lower with RPRAPN. There was a significantly higher number of intraoperative complications with RPRAPN. However, there was no difference in the two groups for postoperative complications. Trifecta outcomes were better with RPRAPN (70.2% vs. 53%, p < 0.0001) compared to TPRAPN. We noted no significant change in overall results when controlled for tumor location (anteriorly or posteriorly). The surgical approach, tumor size and RNS were identified as independent predictors of trifecta on multivariate analysis. Conclusion: RPRAPN is associated with superior perioperative outcomes in well-selected patients compared to TPRAPN. However, the data for the retroperitoneal approach were contributed by a few centers with greater experience with this technique, thus limiting the generalizability of the results of this study.en_US
dc.subjectPartial Nephrectomyen_US
dc.subjectPropensity Matchingen_US
dc.subjectRobot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomyen_US
dc.subjectTransperitoneal Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomyen_US
dc.subjectVattikuti Collective Quality Initiativeen_US
dc.subjectRENAL Nephrometry Scoresen_US
dc.subjectEstimated Glomerular Filtration Rateen_US
dc.subjectSerum Creatinineen_US
dc.subjectIntraoperative Complicationsen_US
dc.subjectEpworth Prostate Centre, Epworth HealthCare, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.titleComparison of perioperative outcomes following transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a propensity-matched analysis of VCQI database.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleWorld Journal of Urologyen_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Urologic Oncology, Max Institute of Cancer Care, Saket, New Delhi, India.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesKing's College, King's Health Partners, London, UKen_US
dc.description.affiliatesGuy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UKen_US
dc.description.affiliatesVattikuti Foundation, Detroit, MI, USAen_US
dc.description.affiliatesThe Medicity Hospital, New Delhi, India.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesRajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, Indiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesHumanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, MI, Italy.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesChennai Urology and Robotics Institute, Chennai, Indiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesSwedish Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesHenry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USAen_US
dc.description.affiliatesORSI Academy, Melle, Belgiumen_US
dc.description.affiliatesCentral Ohio Urology Group, Mount Carmel Health System Prostate Cancer Program, Columbus, OH, USAen_US
dc.description.affiliatesYonsei University Health System, Seoul, South Koreaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesPeter MacCallum Hospital, University of Melbourne, Royal Melbourne Clinical School, Melbourne, Australia.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesKokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital, Mumbai, Indiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesUniversity of Miami Health System, Miami, FL, USAen_US
dc.description.affiliatesUrological Research Institute (URI), IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italyen_US
dc.description.affiliatesCenter for Robotic and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Hospital Da Luz, Luz Sáude, Portugalen_US
dc.description.affiliatesSan Luigi Gonzaga Hospital of Orbassano, Turin, Italyen_US
dc.description.affiliatesAcıbadem M.A., Department of Urology, Aydınlar University, Altuzinade Hospital, Istanbul, Turkeyen_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Urologic Oncology, Max Institute of Cancer Care, Saket, New Delhi, Indiaen_US
dc.type.studyortrialComparative Studyen_US
Appears in Collections:Epworth Prostate Centre

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Items in Epworth are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.