The debate on the pros and cons of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy performed with (on-clamp) or without (off-clamp) renal artery clamping is ongoing. The aim of this meta-analysis is to summarize the available evidence on the comparative studies assessing the outcomes of these two approaches.
Material and methods:
A systematic review of the literature on PubMed, ScienceDirect®, and Embase® was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Statement (PRISMA). Only comparative and case-control studies were submitted to full-text assessment and meta-analysis. RevMan 5.3 software was used.
Results:
From the initial retrieval of 1937 studies, 15 fulfilling inclusion criteria were selected and provided 2075 patients for analysis (702 off-clamp, 1373 on-clamp). Baseline tumor’s features showed a significant difference in size (weighted mean difference: –0.58 cm; 95% confidence interval: [–1.06, –0.10]; p = 0.02) and R.E.N.A.L. score (weighted mean difference: –0.53; 95% confidence interval: [–0.81, –0.25]; p = 0.0002), but not in the exophytic property, the location, and the PADUA score. Pooled analysis revealed shorter operative time (p = 0.02) and higher estimated blood loss (p = 0.0002) for the off-clamp group. Overall complication and transfusion rates were similar, while higher major complication rate was observed in the on-clamp approach (5.6% vs 1.9%, p = 0.03). No differences in oncological outcomes were found. Finally, functional outcomes (assessed by estimated glomerular filtration rate at early postoperative, 3 month, 6 month, and last available follow-up) were not statistically different.
Conclusion:
This meta-analysis shows that off-clamp robot-assisted partial nephrectomy is reserved to smaller renal masses. Under such conditions, no differences with the on-clamp approach emerged.
LjungbergBBensalahKCanfieldS, et al. EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2014 update. Eur Urol2015; 67(5): 913–924.
2.
CampbellSUzzoRGAllafME, et al. Renal mass and localized renal cancer: AUA guideline. J Urol2017; 198(3): 520–529.
3.
WangZWangGXiaQ, et al. Partial nephrectomy vs. radical nephrectomy for renal tumors: a meta-analysis of renal function and cardiovascular outcomes. Urol Oncol2016; 34(12): 533.e11–533.e19.
4.
AntonelliAMinerviniASandriM, et al. Below safety limits, every unit of glomerular filtration rate counts: assessing the relationship between renal function and cancer-specific mortality in renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol2018; 74(5): 661–667.
5.
MariAAntonelliABertoloR, et al. Predictive factors of overall and major postoperative complications after partial nephrectomy: results from a multicenter prospective study (The RECORd 1 project). Eur J Surg Oncol2017; 43(4): 823–830.
6.
AntonelliAMariALongoN, et al. Role of clinical and surgical factors for the prediction of immediate, early and late functional results, and its relationship with cardiovascular outcome after partial nephrectomy: results from the prospective multicenter RECORd 1 project. J Urol2018; 199(4): 927–932.
7.
ShenZXieLXieW, et al. The comparison of perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted and open partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol2016; 14(1): 220.
8.
SchiavinaRMariAAntonelliA, et al. A snapshot of nephron-sparing surgery in Italy: a prospective, multicenter report on clinical and perioperative outcomes (the RECORd 1 project). Eur J Surg Oncol2015; 41(3): 346–352.
9.
GhaniKRSukumarSSammonJD, et al. Practice patterns and outcomes of open and minimally invasive partial nephrectomy since the introduction of robotic partial nephrectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample. J Urol2014; 191(4): 907–912.
10.
MirMCAutorinoRPorpigliaF.Ischemia time and beyond: the concept of global renal damage. Minerva Urol Nefrol2018; 70(5): 447–449.
11.
FicarraVCrestaniABertoloR, et al. Tumor contact surface area as a predictor of postoperative complications and renal function in patients undergoing partial nephrectomy for renal tumors. BJU Int2019; 123(4): 639–645.
12.
KlinglerMJBabitzSKKutikovA, et al. Assessment of volume preservation performed before or after partial nephrectomy accurately predicts postoperative renal function: results from a prospective multicenter study. Urol Oncol2019; 37(1): 33–39.
13.
MinerviniACariniMUzzoRG, et al. Standardized reporting of resection technique during nephron-sparing surgery: the surface-intermediate-base margin score. Eur Urol2014; 66(5): 803–805.
14.
AntonelliAFurlanMSodanoM, et al. External histopathological validation of the surface-intermediate-base margin score. Urol Oncol2017; 35(5): 215–220.
15.
BertoloRCampiRKlatteT, et al. Suture techniques during laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and quantitative synthesis of peri-operative outcomes. BJU Int. Epub ahead of print 14 September 2018. DOI: 10.1111/bju.14537.
16.
ThompsonRHLaneBRLohseCM, et al. Every minute counts when the renal hilum is clamped during partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol2010; 58(3): 340–345.
17.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJ, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg2010; 8: 336–341.
18.
ShamseerLMoherDClarkeM, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ2015; 350: g7647.
19.
RichardsonWSWilsonMCNishikawaJ, et al. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club1995; 123(3): A12–A13.
20.
HowickJChalmersIGlasziouP, et al. Explanation of the 2011 Oxford Centre For Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) levels of evidence (background document). Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653
Armijo-OlivoSStilesCRHagenNA, et al. Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract2012; 18(1): 12–18.
23.
KutikovAUzzoRG.The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J Urol2009; 182(3): 844–853.
24.
FicarraVNovaraGSeccoS, et al. Preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) classification of renal tumours in patients who are candidates for nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol2009; 56(5): 786–793.
25.
HozoSPDjulbegovicBHozoI.Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol2005; 5: 13.
26.
WhiteWMGoelRKHaberGP, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy without renal hilar occlusion. BJU Int2010; 105(11): 1580–1584.
27.
NovakRMulliganDAbazaR.Robotic partial nephrectomy without renal ischemia. Urology2012; 79(6): 1296–1301.
28.
TanaghoYSBhayaniSBSandhuGS, et al. Renal functional and perioperative outcomes of off-clamp versus clamped robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: matched cohort study. Urology2012; 80(4): 838–843.
29.
KaczmarekBFTanaghoYSHillyerSP, et al. Off-clamp robot-assisted partial nephrectomy preserves renal function: a multi-institutional propensity score analysis. Eur Urol2013; 64(6): 988–993.
30.
AcarÖEsenTMusaoğluA, et al. Do we need to clamp the renal hilum liberally during the initial phase of the learning curve of robot-assisted nephron-sparing surgery?Sci World J2014; 2014: 498917.
31.
KomninosCShinTYTuliaoP, et al. Renal function is the same 6 months after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy regardless of clamp technique: analysis of outcomes for off-clamp, selective arterial clamp and main artery clamp techniques, with a minimum follow-up of 1year. BJU Int2015; 115(6): 921–928.
32.
ÇömezKCelikSBozkurtO, et al. Partial nephrectomy for stage I renal cell carcinoma: on-clamp or off-clamp?J Urol Surg2016; 2: 38–41.
33.
EnerKCandaAEAltınovaS, et al. Impact of robotic partial nephrectomy with and without ischemia on renal functions: experience in 34 cases. Turk J Urol2016; 42(4): 272–277.
34.
PeyronnetBKheneZEPradèreB, et al. Off-clamp versus on-clamp robotic partial nephrectomy: a multicenter match-paired case-control study. Urol Int2017; 99(3): 272–276.
35.
AndersonBGPotretzkeAMDuK, et al. Off-clamp robot-assisted partial nephrectomy does not benefit short-term renal function: a matched cohort analysis. J Robot Surg2018; 12: 401–407.
36.
RosenDCPaulucciDJAbazaR, et al. Is off clamp always beneficial during robotic partial nephrectomy? A propensity score-matched comparison of clamp technique in patients with two kidneys. J Endourol2017; 31(11): 1176–1182.
37.
TaweemonkongsapTSuk-OuichaiCChotikawanichE, et al. The impact of arterial clamping technique in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy on renal function and surgical outcomes: six-year experience at Siriraj Hospital, Thailand. Urol Int2018; 100(3): 301–308.
38.
MariAMorselliSSessaF, et al. Impact of the off-clamp endoscopic robot-assisted simple enucleation (ERASE) of clinical T1 renal tumors on the postoperative renal function: results from a matched-pair comparison. Eur J Surg Oncol2018; 44(6): 853–858.
39.
BertoloRSimoneGGaristoJ, et al. Off-clamp vs on-clamp robotic partial nephrectomy: perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes from a propensity-score matching between two high-volume centers. Eur J Surg Oncol. Epub ahead of print 9 December 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.12.005.
40.
AndersonBGPotretzkeAMDuK, et al. Comparing off-clamp and on-clamp robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Urology2019; 126: 102–109.
41.
BertoloRAntonelliASandriM, et al. Re: Comparing Off-Clamp and On-Clamp Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Prospective Randomized Trial. Urology. Epub ahead of print 17 February 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.02.017.
42.
AntonelliACindoloLSandriM, et al. Predictors of the Transition from off to on Clamp Approach during Ongoing Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: Data from the CLOCK Randomized Clinical Trial. J Urol. Epub ahead of print 20 February 2019. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000194.
43.
AntonelliAFurlanMTardanicoR, et al. Features of ipsilateral renal recurrences after partial nephrectomy: a proposal of a pathogenetic classification. Clin Genitourin Cancer2017; 15(5): 540–547.
44.
TelliniRAntonelliATardanicoR, et al. Positive surgical margins predict progression-free survival after nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma: results from a single center cohort of 459 cases with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Clin Genitourin Cancer2019; 17(1): e26–e31.
45.
TrehanA.Comparison of off-clamp partial nephrectomy and on-clamp partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Int2014; 93(2): 125–134.
46.
CacciamaniGEMedinaLGGillTS, et al. Impact of renal hilar control on outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy: systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus. Epub ahead of print 14 July 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.01.012.
47.
GrecoFAutorinoRAltieriV, et al. Ischemia techniques in nephron-sparing surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes. Eur Urol2019; 75(3): 477–491.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
