The evolution of tumor enucleation partial nephrectomy: A comparison of perioperative outcomes for sutureless hemostatic bandage as an alternative to standard renorrhaphy

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThe standard approach to hemostasis during partial nephrectomy (PN) is to perform suture renorrhaphy (SR). Application of a hemostatic bandage (HB) is an alternative to minimize blood loss and devitalized renal parenchyma. We aim to evaluate perioperative outcomes of PN with tumor enucleation (TE) comparing SR to HB.MethodsWe analyzed a retrospective cohort of 195 patients undergoing robot‐assisted laparoscopic PN with TE performed at a tertiary referral center (2012–2022). Hemostasis was obtained with SR in 54 patients while 141 patients underwent application of HB consisting of Surgicel®, Gelfoam® soaked in thrombin, and Floseal®.ResultsSR patients had tumors of greater complexity by RENAL nephrometry score compared to HB patients (p < 0.001). Operative time (141 vs. 183 min, p < 0.001), warm ischemia time (11.6 vs. 24.2 min, p < 0.001), estimated blood loss (37 vs. 214 mL, p < 0.001), and length of stay (1.2 vs. 1.8 days, p < 0.001) favored HB. There was no significant difference in Clavien–Dindo grade ≥3 complications (p = 0.22). Renal function was comparable with mean estimated glomerular filtration rate decrease of 0.66 and 0.54 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 3 months postoperatively for HB and SR, respectively (p = 0.93).ConclusionsApplication of an HB is a safe alternative to SR for hemostasis following PN with TE in appropriately selected patients.