Robotic Versus Open Simple Enucleation for the Treatment of T1a-T1b Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Single Center Matched-pair Comparison

Abstract OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical, pathological, short-term functional data, and complications of endoscopic robotic-assisted simple enucleation (ERASE) and open simple enucleation (OSE). METHODS: We undertook matched-pair analysis (age, tumor size, and preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical [PADUA] score) of 392 patients treated with simple enucleation (SE) for T1a-T1b renal tumors in our department, including 160 patients in the OSE group and 80 in the ERASE group. Perioperative outcomes were compared with univariate analysis. Variables associated with warm ischemia time (WIT) >25 minutes, complications, and postoperative acute kidney dysfunction (AKD) were assessed with multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The groups were comparable in body mass index (BMI), comorbidity, and preoperative renal function. In the ERASE vs the OSE group, no significant differences resulted regarding WIT (18.5 vs 16.4 minutes, P = .5), complications, transfusion rate, reoperation rate for Clavien grade ≥ 3 complications, and positive surgical margin rate (2.9% vs 2.1%, P = .63). In elective patients, no significant difference resulted in variation of estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline (8.5 vs 13.9 mL/min, P = .17) and AKD. In the ERASE group, the clamping of renal pedicle was used with a lower frequency (P <.0001), with lower estimated blood loss (EBL), longer operative time, and a 1-day shorter hospitalization (P = .001). On the multivariate analysis, the surgical approach was not independently associated with WIT >25 minutes, postoperative complications, and AKD. CONCLUSION: The ERASE is a feasible technique with a positive surgical margin rate comparable to OSE; it showed WIT and complication rates similar to the open approach, along with the advantages of mini-invasivity