It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The study aimed to evaluate the impact of abdominal drain placement (vs. omission) on perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN), focusing on complications, time to canalization, deambulation, and pain management. A prospectively-maintained institutional database was queried to get data of patients who underwent RAPN for renal masses between January 2018 and May 2023 at our Institution. Baseline, surgical, and postoperative data were collected. Retrieved patients were stratified based upon placement of abdominal drain (Y/N). Descriptive analyses comparing the two groups were conducted as appropriate. After adjusting for potential confounders, a logistic regression analysis was conducted to evaluate significant predictors of any grade and “major” complications. 342 patients were included: 192 patients in the “drain group” versus 150 patients in the “no-drain” group. Renal masses were larger (p < 0.001) and at higher complexity (RENAL score, p = 0.01), in the drain group. Procedures in the drain group had statistically significantly longer operative time, ischemia time, and higher blood loss (all p-values < 0.001). The urinary collecting system was more likely involved compared to the no-drain group (p = 0.01). At multivariate analysis, abdominal drainage was not a significant predictor of any grade (OR 0.79, 95%CI 0.33–1.87) and major postoperative complications (OR 3.62, 95%CI 0.53–9.68). Patients in the drain group experienced a statistically significantly higher hemoglobin drop (p < 0.01). Moreover, they exhibited statistically significant higher paracetamol consumption (p < 0.001) and need for additional opioids (p = 0.02). In summary, the study results suggest the safety of omitting drain placement and remark on the need for personalized decision-making, which considers patient and procedural factors.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, AUOI Verona, Department of Urology, Borgo Trento Hospital, Verona, Italy; Rush University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Chicago, USA (GRID:grid.240684.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 0705 3621)
2 University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, AUOI Verona, Department of Urology, Borgo Trento Hospital, Verona, Italy (GRID:grid.240684.c)
3 Rush University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Chicago, USA (GRID:grid.240684.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 0705 3621)