In the surgical management of kidney tumors, such as in multiport technology, single-port (SP) robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) can be performed using the transperitoneal (TP) or retroperitoneal (RP) approach. However, there is a dearth of literature on the efficacy and safety of either approach for SP RAPN.
To compare the peri- and postoperative outcomes of the TP and RP approaches for SP RAPN.
This is a retrospective cohort study using data from the Single Port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC) database of five institutions. All patients underwent SP RAPN for a renal mass between 2019 and 2022.
TP versus RP SP RAPN.
Baseline characteristics, and peri- and postoperative outcomes were compared between both the approaches using χ test, Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Student t test.
A total of 219 patients (121 [55.25%] TP, 98 [44.75%] RP) were included in the study. Of them, 115 (51.51%) were male, and the mean age was 60 ± 11 yr. RP had a significantly higher proportion of posterior tumors (54 [55.10%] RP vs 28 [23.14%] TP, p < 0.001), while other baseline characteristics were comparable between both the approaches. There was no statistically significant difference in ischemia time (18 ± 9 vs 18 ± 11 min, p = 0.898), operative time (147 ± 67 vs 146 ± 70 min, p = 0.925), estimated blood loss (p = 0.167), length of stay (1.06 ± 2.25 vs 1.33 ± 1.05 d, p = 0.270), overall complications (5 [5.10%] vs 7 [5.79%]), and major complication rate (2 [2.04%] vs 2 [1.65%], p = 1.000). No difference was observed in positive surgical margin rate (p = 0.472) or delta eGFR at median 6-mo follow-up (p = 0.273). Limitations include retrospective design and no long-term follow-up.
With proper patient selection based on patient and tumor characteristics, surgeons can opt for either the TP or the RP approach for SP RAPN, and maintain satisfactory outcomes.
The use of a single port (SP) is a novel technology for performing robotic surgery. Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is a surgery to remove a portion of the kidney due to kidney cancer. Depending on patient characteristics and surgeons’ preference, SP can be performed via two approaches for RAPN: through the abdomen or through the space behind the abdominal cavity. We compared outcomes between these two approaches for patients receiving SP RAPN, finding that they were comparable. We conclude that with proper patient selection based on patient and tumor characteristics, surgeons can opt for either the TP or the RP approach for SP RAPN, and maintain satisfactory outcomes.

Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.