Evaluation of Robotic Simple Nephrectomy Outcomes Using the modified ClavienDindo Classification System
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51985/Keywords:
Body Mass Index; Clavien–Dindo Classification; Nephrectomy; Postoperative Complications; Robotic Surgical ProcedureAbstract
Objectives: To determine frequency and severity of post-op complications in patients undergoing robotic simple nephrectomy by using modified Clavien–Dindo classification.
Study Design and Setting: This longitudinal descriptive study conducted in the Department of Urological Surgery and Transplantation, Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre (JPMC), Karachi.
Methodology: This study was carried over a six-month (6) period. A total of 68 patients undergoing robot-assisted simple nephrectomy for benign, non-functioning kidneys were included through non-probability consecutive sampling. Sample size was calculated using OpenEpi, based on an expected postoperative complication rate of 16%, using 95% confidence and taking 5% margin of error, applying finite population correction. Postop complications occurring within 30 days or one month were graded according to the modified Clavien–Dindo classification. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 24.0. Associations were assessed using t-tests and chi-square tests, with a p-value less than <0.05 considered statistically significant.
Results: Among 68 patients, prolonged operative time was associated with increased intraoperative blood loss, higher overall complication rates, greater Clavien–Dindo grades, and the development of CKD (Chronic kidney disease) at followup. Higher body mass index was significantly related to prolonged hospital stay and delayed postoperative recovery. Surgical indication was also associated with increased bleeding and greater complication severity.
Conclusions: Prolonged operative time and higher body mass index were important predictors of postoperative morbidity following robot-assisted simple nephrectomy.
References
1. Razdan S, Okhawere KE, Ucpinar B, Saini I, Deluxe A, Abaza
R, et al. The state of robotic partial nephrectomy: operative,
functional, and oncological outcomes from a robust multiinstitution collaborative. Urology. 2023;173:92-97. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.12.019
2. Sood A, Abdollah F, Sammon JD, Schmid M, Olugbade K
Jr, Peabody JO, et al. The effect of surgeon volume on patientreported outcomes following radical nephrectomy: results
from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results
database. Eur Urol. 2014;65(2):382-389. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eururo.2013.08.0153. Coco D, Leanza S, Viola MG, Coco D. Systematic review of
robotic nephrectomy for kidney cancer. J Kidney Cancer
VHL. 2025;12(1):29-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15586/
jkcvhl.v12i1.343
4. Wang Y, Wilder S, Hijazi M, Tan W, Porter JR, Wright JL,
et al. Surgeon skill and perioperative outcomes in robotassisted partial nephrectomy. JAMA Netw Open.
2024;7(7):e2421696.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/
jamanetworkopen.2024.2169
5. Kozyrakis D, Tzavara C, Damaskos C, Zarkadas A, Bozios
D, Karmogiannis A, et al. Robot-assisted versus open partial
nephrectomy for renal malignancies: systematic review and
meta-analysis. Curr Urol Rep. 2025;26(1):53. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-024-01185-4
6. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical
complications: a new proposal. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205-
213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
7. Abbassi F, Pfister M, Lucas KL, Domenghino A, Puhan MA,
Clavien PA. Milestones in surgical complication reporting.
Ann Surg. 2024;280(5):763-771. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/
SLA.0000000000006204
8. Schilling PL, Dimick JB, Birkmeyer JD. Prioritizing quality
improvement in general surgery. J Am Coll Surg.
2008;207(5):698-704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jamcollsurg.2008.06.342
9. Velièkoviæ J, Feng C, Palibrk I, Velièkoviæ D, Jovanoviæ B,
Bumbašireviæ V. Assessment of complications after major
abdominal surgery. J Surg Res. 2020;247:397-405. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.10.047
10. Mitropoulos D, Artibani W, Biyani CS, Jensen JB, Roupret
M, Truss M. Validation of the Clavien-Dindo grading system
in urology by the European Association of Urology guidelines
Ad Hoc panel. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4(4):608-613. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.02.014
11. Pandolfo SD, Cerrato C, Wu Z, Franco A, Del Giudice F,
Sciarra A, et al. Outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy
for advanced indications. Asian J Urol. 2023;10(4):390-406.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2023.03.003
12. Slankamenac K, Graf R, Barkun J, Puhan MA, Clavien PA.
The comprehensive complication index. Ann Surg.
2013;258(1):1-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA
.0b013e31828ee697
13. Beauval JB, Khene ZE, Roumiguié M, Rahota R, Mejean A,
Doumerc N, et al. Open versus robotic partial nephrectomy
in obese patients. World J Urol. 2024;42(1):213. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04521-9
14. Barletta F, Frego N, de Angelis M, Resca S, Ticonosco M,
Vecchio E, et al. Contemporary outcomes of robot-assisted
partial nephrectomy. Cancers (Basel). 2025;17(13):2104.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17132104
15. Roaldsen M, Lohne V, Stenberg TA, Haug ES. Comparing
open and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. BMC Urol.
2024;24:197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-024-01475-
8
16. Davidiuk AJ, Parker AS, Thomas CS, Leibovich BC, Castle
EP, Heckman MG, et al. Ottawa model nephrometry score:
an accurate preoperative tool to predict outcomes in robotassisted partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol. 2014;66(2):289-295.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.09.02517. Tsai SH, Tseng PT, Sherer BA, Lai YC, Lin PY, Wu CK, et
al. Open versus robotic partial nephrectomy. Int J Med Robot.
2019;15(1):e1963. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1963
18. Laird A, Fowler S, Reynolds JA, McNeill SA, Deane AM,
Stolzenburg JU, et al. Differences in practice and outcomes
between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nephrectomy: a
population-based study. BJU Int. 2015;116(3):418-423. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12905
19. Kowalewski KF, Müller D, Mühlbauer J, Hendrie JD, Worst
TS, Wessels F, et al. Comprehensive complication index in
urology. World J Urol. 2021;39(5):1631-1639. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03463-9
20. Autorino R, Khalifeh A, Laydner H, Samarasekera D, Stein
RJ, Hafron J, et al. Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic partial
nephrectomy: comparison of outcomes and evaluation of the
learning curve. Urology. 2013;81(3):503-509. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.11.014
21. Artsitas S, Artsitas D, Koronaki I, Toutouzas KG, Zografos
GC. Robotic versus open partial nephrectomy: meta-analysis.
J Robot Surg. 2024;18(1):313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11701-023-01687-4
22. Bukavina L, Mishra K, Calaway A, Ponsky L. Robotic partial
nephrectomy: update on techniques. Urol Clin North Am.
2021;48(1):61-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ucl.2020.
09.004
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Journal of Bahria University Medical & Dental College is an open access journal and is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0. which permits unrestricted non commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
