Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy using hinotori versus da Vinci surgical robot system: a propensity score-matched analysis

被引:15
|
作者
Motoyama, Daisuke [1 ,2 ]
Matsushita, Yuto [1 ]
Watanabe, Hiromitsu [1 ]
Tamura, Keita [1 ]
Otsuka, Atsushi [1 ]
Fujisawa, Masato [3 ]
Miyake, Hideaki [1 ]
机构
[1] Hamamatsu Univ, Dept Urol, Sch Med, 1-20-1 Handayama,Higashi Ku, Hamamatsu 4313192, Japan
[2] Hamamatsu Univ, Dept Developed Studies Adv Robot Surg, Sch Med, 1-20-1 Handayama,Higashi Ku, Hamamatsu 4313192, Japan
[3] Kobe Univ, Div Urol, Grad Sch Med, Kobe, Japan
关键词
da Vinci; Hinotori; Perioperative outcomes; Propensity score-matching; Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy; COMPLICATIONS;
D O I
10.1007/s11701-023-01614-x
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
The purpose of this study was to evaluate perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) using hinotori, a recently developed robot-assisted surgical platform, by comparing them with those using da Vinci. This study included 303 and 40 consecutive patients who underwent RAPN using da Vinci and hinotori, respectively. To adjust potential baseline parameters between da Vinci and hinotori groups, 1:2 propensity score-matching was performed, and perioperative outcomes in these two groups were comprehensively evaluated. Propensity score-matched analysis generated two groups, consisting of 74 and 37 patients undergoing RAPN using da Vinci and hinotori, respectively, and no significant differences in major baseline parameters were noted between the two groups. RAPN could be completed without conversion to nephrectomy or open surgery in all patients. There were no significant differences in major perioperative outcomes between da Vinci and hinotori groups, including the operative time, time using the robotic system and warm ischemia time. No patient in either group was diagnosed with a positive surgical margin or experienced perioperative complications, corresponding to Clavien-Dindo 3 & LE; . There were no significant differences in the achievements of trifecta and margin, ischemia and complications outcomes between the two groups, and changes in the estimated glomerular filtration rate 1 and 28 days after RAPN were also similar between them. In conclusion, these findings showed that the hinotori platform could facilitate similar perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing RAPN in comparison with the existing robotic system, da Vinci.
引用
收藏
页码:2435 / 2440
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy using hinotori versus da Vinci surgical robot system: a propensity score-matched analysis
    Daisuke Motoyama
    Yuto Matsushita
    Hiromitsu Watanabe
    Keita Tamura
    Atsushi Otsuka
    Masato Fujisawa
    Hideaki Miyake
    Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2023, 17 : 2435 - 2440
  • [2] hinotori™ vs. da Vinci®: propensity score-matched analysis of surgical outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
    Kohjimoto, Yasuo
    Yamashita, Shimpei
    Iwagami, Sohei
    Muraoka, Satoshi
    Wakamiya, Takahito
    Hara, Isao
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2024, 18 (01)
  • [3] Comparison of Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy Using the Made-in-Japan Robotic System Hinotori Versus Da Vinci: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis
    Tsujioka, Hiroki
    Setoguchi, Kiyoshi
    Nirazuka, Asumi
    Hasegawa, Kintaro
    Izumi, Keita
    Nakayama, Akinori
    Saito, Kazutaka
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ROBOTICS AND COMPUTER ASSISTED SURGERY, 2024, 20 (06):
  • [4] Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy using a new robot-assisted modular platform versus traditional robot-assisted platform: A propensity score-matched comparison of perioperative and functional outcomes
    Prata, F.
    Tedesco, F.
    Iannuzzi, A.
    Ragusa, A.
    Civitella, A.
    Pira, M.
    D'Addurno, G.
    Basile, S.
    Calle, P.
    Travino, A.
    Fantozzi, M.
    Tuzzolo, P.
    Cacciatore, L.
    Minore, A.
    Testa, A.
    Raso, G.
    Pino, M.
    Ricci, M.
    Muto, G.
    Anceschi, U.
    Simone, G.
    Muto, G.
    Scarpa, R. M.
    Papalia, R.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2024, 85 : S2063 - S2064
  • [5] Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: A propensity score-matched comparative analysis of surgical outcomes and preserved renal parenchymal volume
    Tachibana, Hidekazu
    Takagi, Toshio
    Kondo, Tsunenori
    Ishida, Hideki
    Tanabe, Kazunari
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 25 (04) : 359 - 364
  • [6] Robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy in patients with chronic kidney disease: A propensity score-matched comparative analysis of surgical outcomes
    Takagi, Toshio
    Kondo, Tsunenori
    Tachibana, Hidekazu
    Iizuka, Junpei
    Omae, Kenji
    Kobayashi, Hirohito
    Yoshida, Kazuhiko
    Tanabe, Kazunari
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 24 (07) : 505 - 510
  • [7] Comparison of surgical outcomes and split renal function between laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis
    Tomoya Hatayama
    Ryo Tasaka
    Hideki Mochizuki
    Koji Mita
    International Urology and Nephrology, 2022, 54 : 805 - 811
  • [8] Comparison of surgical outcomes and split renal function between laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis
    Hatayama, Tomoya
    Tasaka, Ryo
    Mochizuki, Hideki
    Mita, Koji
    INTERNATIONAL UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY, 2022, 54 (04) : 805 - 811
  • [9] Editorial Comment to Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: A propensity score-matched comparative analysis of surgical outcomes and preserved renal parenchymal volume
    Papalia, Rocco
    Mastroianni, Riccardo
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 25 (04) : 364 - 365
  • [10] Comparisons of the safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for large angiomyolipomas: a propensity score-matched analysis
    Zhang, Shengjie
    Lin, Tingsheng
    Liu, Guangxiang
    Zhang, Shiwei
    Guo, Hongqian
    INTERNATIONAL UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY, 2020, 52 (09) : 1675 - 1682