Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Zero-fragment Nephrolithotomy: A Multi-center Evaluation of Robotic Pyelolithotomy and Nephrolithotomy for Treating Renal Stones

  • Ryan Swearingen
    ,
  • Akshay Sood
    ,
  • Rabii Madi
    ,
  • Zachary Klaassen
    ,
  • Ketan Badani
    ,
  • Jack S. Elder
*Corresponding author for this work
  • University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
    ,
  • Henry Ford Health System
    ,
  • ,
  • Medical College of Georgia
    ,
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
    ,
  • Wake Forest Baptist Health
Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Abstract

Background Robotic pyelolithotomy (RPL) and robotic nephrolithotomy (RNL) may be utilized for treating kidney stones as an alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy or flexible ureteroscopy. Objective To describe the techniques of RPL and RNL, and present multi-center outcome data for patients undergoing these procedures. Design, setting, and participants This study was a retrospective analysis of 27 patients undergoing RPL and RNL at five tertiary academic institutions between 2008 and 2014. Surgical procedure RPL and RNL without use of renal ischemia. Measurements We assessed stone clearance by visual assessment and postoperative imaging. We also examined other factors, including complications (Clavien grade), estimated blood loss, operative time, and length of stay. Results and limitations Twenty-seven patients underwent 28 procedures for a mean renal stone size of 2.74 cm (standard deviation: 1.4, range: 0.8–5.8). The mean stone volume was 10.2 cm3. RPL accounted for 26 of these procedures. RNL was performed in one patient, while another underwent combined RPL-RNL. Indications included failed previous endourological management (13), staghorn calculi (five), gas containing stone (one), calyceal diverticulum (one), complex urinary tract reconstruction (two), and patient preference (four). The mean patient age was 35.6 yr and mean body mass index was 25.5 kg/m2. Mean operative time/console times were 182 min and 128 min, respectively. The mean estimated blood loss was 38 ml. The mean length of stay was 1.7 d. There was no significant change in preoperative and postoperative serum creatinine levels. The overall complication rate was 18.5% (Clavien 1 = 3.7%; 2 = 7.4%; 3b = 7.4%). The complete stone-free rate was 96%. Conclusions RPL and RNL are safe and reasonable options for removing renal stones in select patients. In particular, RPL allows the removal of stones without transgressing the parenchyma, reducing potential bleeding and nephron loss. Patient summary The robotic approach allows for complete removal of the renal stone without fragmentation, thereby maximizing chances for complete stone clearance in one procedure. Robotic pyelolithotomy and robotic nephrolithotomy are safe and reasonable alternatives to percutaneous nephrolithotomy for removing renal stones in select patients. In particular, robotic pyelolithotomy allows the removal of stones without transgressing the parenchyma, reducing potential bleeding and nephron loss.

Publication Information

Output type

Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English (US)

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 1014-1021 (8 pages)

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

European urology (Volume 72, Issue 6)

Publication milestones

  • Accepted/In press - 2016
  • Published - 12/2017

Publication status

Published - 12/2017

ISSN

0302-2838

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 85005979485
  • PubMed: 28085668

Publication metrics

Metrics

Fractional count
1
Fractional count
0.11
Fractional count
8
Fractional count
0.89
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
1
SciVal
FWCI
2.43
SciVal
Author count
9
SciVal
citations
18
SciVal
Paper percentile
87
Scopus
citations

PlumX, opens in new tab

Captures
56
Citation count
36