1019 1030
Table 3 – Summary of studies evaluating the role of laparoscopic and robotic surgery in managing complex renal stones
a [5_TD$DIFF]Study
Yr
N
Technique
evaluated
Stone size
(mean; cm)
Mean
operative
time (mins)
Mean
ischemia
time (mins)
Ischemia:
none (N),
warm (W),
or cold (C)
EBL
(mean; ml)
LOS
(mean; d)
Clavien
complication
rate (%)
Stone-free
rate (%)
Ancillary
procedures
(%)
Follow-up
(mean; d)
Laparoscopic (L)
Lee et al
[15]
2014 45 L-PL
4.9
163.7
0
N
47.7
4.6
2.2 Grade 2
2.2 Grade 3
0.0 Grade 4
91.1
8.9
90
Li et al
[16]
2014 89 L-PL
2.9
90.8
0
N
NA
4.5
3.4 Grade 2
0.0 Grade 3
0.0 Grade 4
98.0
NA
90
Basiri et al
[17]
2014 30 L-PL
3.6
149.0
0
N
NA
3.4
3.3 Grade 2
3.3 Grade 3
0.0 Grade 4
90.1
9.9
90
Haggag et al
[18]2013 10 L-PL
6.5 cm
2
131.0
0
N
65.0
2.3
30.0 Grade 2
0.0 Grade 3
0.0 Grade 4
80.0
20.0
90
Singh et al
[19]
2013 22 L-PL
3.0
91.8
0
N
54.2
NA
NA
95.5
4.5
90
Giedelman et al
[20]
2012 8 L-ANL
5.3
142.5
20.8
W
315
3.5
0.0 Grade 2
12.5 Grade 3
0.0 Grade 4
63
NA
15
Zhou et al
[21]
2010 11 L-ANL
5.2
139.0
31.0
W
<
150
NA
27.3 Grade 2
0.0 Grade 3
0.0 Grade 4
90.9
9.1
365
Simforoosh et al
[22]2008 5 L-ANL
5.3
170
32.0
W
<
100
5.4
0.0 Grade 2
0.0 Grade 3
0.0 Grade 4
60.0
40.0
90
Robotic (R)
Atug et al
[23]
2005 8 R-PL
10.7
275.8
0
N
48.6
1.1
0.0 Grade 2
0.0 Grade 3
0.0 Grade 4
100
0.0
374
Badani et al
[13]
2006 13 R-PL
4.2
158.2
0
N
100.0
—
7.7 Grade 2
0.0 Grade 3
0.0 Grade 4
92.3
7.7
1
Lee et al
[24]
2007 5 R-PL
3.84
315.0
0
N
19.0
3.8
NA
60.0
20.0
467
Mufarrij et al
[25]
2008 13 R-PL
NA
235.9
0
N
60.8
2
0.0 Grade 2
0.0 Grade 3
0.0 Grade 4
100
0.0
855
Ghani et al
[11]
2014 4 R-PL/NL
NA
216.0
NA
N
37.5
2
25.0 Grade 2
0.0 Grade 3
0.0 Grade 4
100
0.0
NA
King et al
[12]
2014 7 R-NL
NA
222
35
W
121
3
14.3 Grade 2
0.0 Grade 3
0.0 Grade 4
28.6
28.5
153
ANL = anatrophic nephrolithotomy; EBL = estimated blood loss; LOS = length of stay; NA = not available; NL = nephrolithotomy; PL = pyelolithotomy.
a
Case reports were not included.
E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y 7 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 1 4 – 1 0 2 1
1019