Comparison of safety and feasibility of on-clamp versus off-clamp robotic partial nephrectomy.

IF 1.3 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Nicolò Fiorello, Alessandro Zucchi, Giada Macrì, Gregorio Romei, Francesco Gregori, Erika Massai, Giulia Tornabene, Paolo Piaggi, Carlo Alberto Sepich
{"title":"Comparison of safety and feasibility of on-clamp versus off-clamp robotic partial nephrectomy.","authors":"Nicolò Fiorello, Alessandro Zucchi, Giada Macrì, Gregorio Romei, Francesco Gregori, Erika Massai, Giulia Tornabene, Paolo Piaggi, Carlo Alberto Sepich","doi":"10.1177/03915603261464711","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is currently the gold standard for localized renal tumors. The surgical approach can be performed using either an on-clamp or off-clamp technique. The aim of the study is to evaluate differences in positive surgical margins (PSMs) and perioperative complications between on-clamp and off-clamp approaches of RAPN, at all levels of tumor complexity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively enrolled 478 patients who underwent RAPN between 1/2020 and 6/2024 and divided into two groups: A (on-clamp) and B (off-clamp). We stratified tumor complexity according to the RENAL score and analyzed all perioperative and oncological outcomes: PSMs, post-operative creatinine changes, intra- and post-operative complications, duration of procedures. For multivariate statistical analysis we used the Chi-square test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 83 procedures clamping of the main renal artery was performed (in no case was selective clamping performed). Median value for duration of clamping was 16 minuts. In patients who have undergone ischemia, the duration of ischemia is correlated with the increase in postoperative creatinine (<i>p</i> < 0.001). There was a significant difference in the duration of the procedures between the two groups: group A (median value 90'), group B (median value 120') (<i>p</i> < 0.001) while no difference regarding perioperative complications (<i>p</i> = 0.34) or PSMs (<i>p</i> = 0.73).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both the on-clamp and off-clamp approaches are considered safe and feasible, provided there is adequate surgical experience. The complication rate was similar, as were the oncological outcomes and but post-operative creatinine increases proportionally to the duration of ischemia. In on-clamp procedures the increase in postoperative creatinine is directly related to the duration of ischemia. The off-clamp procedure is shorter with no difference in surgical and oncological outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":23574,"journal":{"name":"Urologia Journal","volume":" ","pages":"3915603261464711"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologia Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03915603261464711","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is currently the gold standard for localized renal tumors. The surgical approach can be performed using either an on-clamp or off-clamp technique. The aim of the study is to evaluate differences in positive surgical margins (PSMs) and perioperative complications between on-clamp and off-clamp approaches of RAPN, at all levels of tumor complexity.

Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 478 patients who underwent RAPN between 1/2020 and 6/2024 and divided into two groups: A (on-clamp) and B (off-clamp). We stratified tumor complexity according to the RENAL score and analyzed all perioperative and oncological outcomes: PSMs, post-operative creatinine changes, intra- and post-operative complications, duration of procedures. For multivariate statistical analysis we used the Chi-square test.

Results: In 83 procedures clamping of the main renal artery was performed (in no case was selective clamping performed). Median value for duration of clamping was 16 minuts. In patients who have undergone ischemia, the duration of ischemia is correlated with the increase in postoperative creatinine (p < 0.001). There was a significant difference in the duration of the procedures between the two groups: group A (median value 90'), group B (median value 120') (p < 0.001) while no difference regarding perioperative complications (p = 0.34) or PSMs (p = 0.73).

Conclusions: Both the on-clamp and off-clamp approaches are considered safe and feasible, provided there is adequate surgical experience. The complication rate was similar, as were the oncological outcomes and but post-operative creatinine increases proportionally to the duration of ischemia. In on-clamp procedures the increase in postoperative creatinine is directly related to the duration of ischemia. The off-clamp procedure is shorter with no difference in surgical and oncological outcomes.

带钳与无钳机器人肾部分切除术的安全性和可行性比较。
机器人辅助部分肾切除术(RAPN)是目前治疗局部肾肿瘤的金标准。手术方法可以使用钳上或钳下技术进行。本研究的目的是评估在所有肿瘤复杂程度下,RAPN的钳上入路和非钳上入路的阳性手术切缘(psm)和围手术期并发症的差异。方法:我们回顾性地纳入了478例在2020年1月至2024年6月期间接受RAPN的患者,分为两组:A组(带钳)和B组(不带钳)。我们根据肾评分对肿瘤复杂性进行分层,并分析所有围手术期和肿瘤预后:pms、术后肌酐变化、术中和术后并发症、手术时间。对于多元统计分析,我们使用卡方检验。结果:83例均行肾主动脉夹持术(无选择性夹持术)。夹紧时间的中位数为16分钟。在缺血患者中,缺血持续时间与术后肌酐升高(p = 0.34)或psm升高(p = 0.73)相关。结论:只要有足够的手术经验,上钳入路和下钳入路都是安全可行的。并发症发生率相似,肿瘤结果也相似,但术后肌酐随缺血时间的延长而增加。在钳上手术中,术后肌酐的升高与缺血持续时间直接相关。非钳夹手术时间较短,手术和肿瘤结果无差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Urologia Journal
Urologia Journal UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
66
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书