Selective Suturing or Sutureless Technique in Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy: Results from a Propensity-score Matched Analysis

Background: Despite efforts aimed at preserving renal function, the functional decline after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is not negligible. To address the risk of intraparenchymal vessel injuries during renorrhaphy, with consequent loss of functional renal parenchyma, we introduced a new surgical technique for RAPN. Objective: To compare perioperative patient outcomes between selective-suturing or sutureless RAPN (suRAPN) and standard RAPN (stRAPN). Design, setting, and participants: Ninety-two consecutive patients undergoing RAPN for a renal mass performed by a high-volume surgeon at a European tertiary center were included. Propensity-score matching was used to account for baseline differences between suRAPN and stRAPN patients. Intervention: RAPN using a selective-suturing or sutureless technique versus standard RAPN. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Perioperative outcomes included operative time, blood loss, length of stay, and intraoperative and 30-d postoperative complications. We also evaluated trifecta achievement (warm ischemia time ≤25 min, negative surgical margins, and no perioperative complications) and the incidence of postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI). We applied χ2 tests, t tests, and Kruskal-Wallis tests to assess differences in perioperative outcomes between suRAPN and stRAPN. Results and limitations: Overall, 29 patients (31%) were treated with suRAPN. Only one suRAPN patient experienced intraoperative complications (p = 0.9). Two suRAPN patients (6.9%) and four stRAPN patients (13.8%) experienced 30-d postoperative complications (p = 0.3). Operative time (110 vs 150 min; p < 0.01) and length of stay (2 vs 3 d; p = 0.02) were shorter for suRAPN than for stRAPN. The trifecta outcome was achieved in 25 suRAPN patients (86%) and 20 stRAPN patients (70%; p = 0.1). Only one suRAPN patient (3.4%) versus five stRAPN patients (17%) experienced postoperative AKI (p = 0.2). Finally, the decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate at 6-mo follow-up was lower in the suRAPN (−5.2%) than in the stRAPN group (−9.1%; p < 0.01). Lack of randomization represents the main study limitation. Conclusions: A selective-suturing or sutureless technique in RAPN is feasible and safe. Moreover, suRAPN is a lower-impact surgical procedure. We obtained promising results for trifecta and functional outcomes, but prospective randomized trials are needed to validate the impact of selective suturing or a sutureless technique on long-term functional outcomes. Patient summary: We assessed a new technique in robotic surgery to remove part of the kidney because of kidney cancer. Our new technique involves selective suturing or no suturing of the area from where the tumor is removed. We found that the rate of complications did not increase and the operating time and length of hospital stay were shorter using this new technique. Avoiding suturing of the tumor resection bed during robot-assisted partial nephrectomy is a safe and feasible procedure and achieves lower-impact surgery, leading to shorter operative times and hospital stays. We obtained promising trifecta (warm ischemia time ≤25 min, negative surgical margins, and no perioperative complications) and functional outcomes.