Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 May;10(5):2199-2208.
doi: 10.21037/tau.2019.12.09.

The future of "Retro" robotic partial nephrectomy

Affiliations
Review

The future of "Retro" robotic partial nephrectomy

David M Strauss et al. Transl Androl Urol. 2021 May.

Abstract

Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the gold standard treatment for appropriately selected renal masses. Recent surgical advancements and adoption of the robotic technique has led to greater adoption of nephron-sparing surgery. Robotic PN was initially described via the transperitoneal (TP) approach, however, retroperitoneal (RP) access is possible and in some cases more desirable. In the RP approach, the kidney is accessed from its posterior surface and the intraperitoneal space is avoided. The RP approach to PN has the benefit of avoiding intraperitoneal viscera and colonic mobilization in patients with extensive prior abdominal surgery. The technique also eliminates the need for renal unit rotation in patients with posterior tumors and affords access to masses directly posterior to the renal hilum. The RP and TP approach to PN have shown similar oncologic and perioperative outcomes. Several recent studies have reported shorter operative times and lengths of stay (LOS) with comparable warm ischemia times for the RP approach when compared to transperitoneal PN (tPN). Given the indispensable deliverables of this approach in select patients, robotic retroperitoneal PN (rPN) should be in the armamentarium of a versatile urologic kidney surgeon. This review describes the current state of rPN and compares the indications and outcomes of the TP and RP approaches.

Keywords: Retroperitoneoscopic; partial nephrectomy (PN); renal mass; robotic partial nephrectomy; transperitoneal partial nephrectomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau.2019.12.09). The series “Controversies in Minimally Invasive Urologic Oncology” was commissioned by the editorial office without any funding or sponsorship. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Patient positioning for rPN. Patient is placed in the lateral decubitus position and the OR table is placed in flexion to expand distance between the costal margin and iliac crest. Robot is docked at the patient’s head. rPN, retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy; OR, operating room.
Figure 2
Figure 2
rPN port placement. The iliac crest and costal margin at the 12th rib are marked. A 12-mm camera port is placed at the posterior axillary line between the marked anatomic landmarks. Robotic 8-mm ports are placed 6–8 apart, two medial to the camera port and one lateral to the camera port. A 12-mm assistant port is placed just off the iliac crest between the 12-mm camera port and the most medial 8-mm robotic port. rPN, retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Patient positioning for tPN. Patient is placed in a modified lateral decubitus position. Robot is docked from the patient’s side. tPN, transperitoneal partial nephrectomy.
Figure 4
Figure 4
tPN port placement. The costal margin is marked. A 12-mm Camera port is placed cephalad to the umbilicus and lateral to the rectus muscle. The 8-mm robotic ports are placed along a straight line, cephalad to caudad, from the camera port, approximately one hand-breadth apart, starting just underneath the costal margin. A 12-mm assistant port is placed cranial and lateral to the umbilicus. tPN, transperitoneal partial nephrectomy.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Retroperitoneoscopic robotic partial nephrectomy for a patient with “hostile abdomen”. Patient with a colostomy, such as the one pictured, is an appropriate candidate for retroperitoneal access for kidney surgery, as intraabdominal adhesions and pathology are completely avoided.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Welch HG, Skinner JS, Schroeck FR, et al. Regional Variation of Computed Tomographic Imaging in the United States and the Risk of Nephrectomy. JAMA Intern Med 2018;178:221-7. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.7508 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Smaldone MC, Egleston B, Hollingsworth JM, et al. Understanding Treatment Disconnect and Mortality Trends in Renal Cell Carcinoma Using Tumor Registry Data. Med Care 2017;55:398-404. 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000657 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Campbell S, Uzzo RG, Allaf ME, et al. Renal Mass and Localized Renal Cancer: AUA Guideline. J Urol 2017;198:520-9. 10.1016/j.juro.2017.04.100 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kim SP, Campbell SC, Gill I, et al. Collaborative Review of Risk Benefit Trade-offs Between Partial and Radical Nephrectomy in the Management of Anatomically Complex Renal Masses. Eur Urol 2017;72:64-75. 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.11.038 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Van Poppel H, Da Pozzo L, Albrecht W, et al. A prospective randomized EORTC intergroup phase 3 study comparing the complications of elective nephron-sparing surgery and radical nephrectomy for low-stage renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 2007;51:1606-15. 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.11.013 - DOI - PubMed