Use of the Satinsky clamp for hilar clamping during robotic partial nephrectomy

indications, technique, and multi-center outcomes

Newaj Abdullah, Haider Rahbar, Ravi Barod, Deepansh Dalela, Jeff Larson, Michael Johnson, Alon Mass, Homayoun Zargar, Jihad Kaouk, Mohamad E Allaf, Sam Bhayani, Michael Stifelman, Craig Rogers

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

A Satinsky clamp may be a backup option for hilar clamping during robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) if there are challenges with application of bulldog clamps, but there are potential safety concerns. We evaluate outcomes of RPN using Satinsky vs. bulldog clamps, and provide tips for safe use of the Satinsky as a backup option. Using a multi-center database, we identified 1073 patients who underwent RPN between 2006 and 2013, and had information available about method of hilar clamping (bulldog clamp vs. Satinsky clamp). Patient baseline characteristics, tumor features, and perioperative outcomes were compared between the Satinsky and bulldog clamp groups. A Satinsky clamp was used for hilar clamping in 94 (8.8 %) RPN cases, and bulldog clamps were used in 979 (91.2 %) cases. The use of a Satinsky clamp was associated with greater operative time (198 vs. 175 min, p <0.001), estimated blood loss (EBL, 200 vs. 100 ml, p <0.001), warm ischemia time (WIT, 20 vs. 19 min, p = 0.036), transfusion rate (12.8 vs. 4.8 %, p = 0.001), and hospital stay (3 vs. 2 days, p <0.001). Tumor characteristics and number of renal vessels were similar between groups. There were six intraoperative complications in the Satinsky clamp group, but none were directly related to the Satinsky clamp. On multivariable analysis, the use of the Satinsky clamp was not associated with increase in intraoperative or Clavien ≥3 postoperative complications, positive surgical margin rate or percentage change in estimated glomerular filtration rate. A Satinsky clamp can be a backup option for hilar clamping during challenging RPN cases, but requires careful technique, and was rarely necessary.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-5
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Robotic Surgery
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jun 21 2016

Fingerprint

Robotics
Nephrectomy
Constriction
Warm Ischemia
Intraoperative Complications
Operative Time
Glomerular Filtration Rate
Length of Stay
Neoplasms
Databases
Kidney
Safety

Keywords

  • Hilar clamping
  • Indications for Satinsky clamp
  • Satinsky clamp

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Health Informatics

Cite this

Use of the Satinsky clamp for hilar clamping during robotic partial nephrectomy : indications, technique, and multi-center outcomes. / Abdullah, Newaj; Rahbar, Haider; Barod, Ravi; Dalela, Deepansh; Larson, Jeff; Johnson, Michael; Mass, Alon; Zargar, Homayoun; Kaouk, Jihad; Allaf, Mohamad E; Bhayani, Sam; Stifelman, Michael; Rogers, Craig.

In: Journal of Robotic Surgery, 21.06.2016, p. 1-5.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abdullah, Newaj ; Rahbar, Haider ; Barod, Ravi ; Dalela, Deepansh ; Larson, Jeff ; Johnson, Michael ; Mass, Alon ; Zargar, Homayoun ; Kaouk, Jihad ; Allaf, Mohamad E ; Bhayani, Sam ; Stifelman, Michael ; Rogers, Craig. / Use of the Satinsky clamp for hilar clamping during robotic partial nephrectomy : indications, technique, and multi-center outcomes. In: Journal of Robotic Surgery. 2016 ; pp. 1-5.
@article{b4d272bf5fae475887ff77070bf5ab42,
title = "Use of the Satinsky clamp for hilar clamping during robotic partial nephrectomy: indications, technique, and multi-center outcomes",
abstract = "A Satinsky clamp may be a backup option for hilar clamping during robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) if there are challenges with application of bulldog clamps, but there are potential safety concerns. We evaluate outcomes of RPN using Satinsky vs. bulldog clamps, and provide tips for safe use of the Satinsky as a backup option. Using a multi-center database, we identified 1073 patients who underwent RPN between 2006 and 2013, and had information available about method of hilar clamping (bulldog clamp vs. Satinsky clamp). Patient baseline characteristics, tumor features, and perioperative outcomes were compared between the Satinsky and bulldog clamp groups. A Satinsky clamp was used for hilar clamping in 94 (8.8 {\%}) RPN cases, and bulldog clamps were used in 979 (91.2 {\%}) cases. The use of a Satinsky clamp was associated with greater operative time (198 vs. 175 min, p <0.001), estimated blood loss (EBL, 200 vs. 100 ml, p <0.001), warm ischemia time (WIT, 20 vs. 19 min, p = 0.036), transfusion rate (12.8 vs. 4.8 {\%}, p = 0.001), and hospital stay (3 vs. 2 days, p <0.001). Tumor characteristics and number of renal vessels were similar between groups. There were six intraoperative complications in the Satinsky clamp group, but none were directly related to the Satinsky clamp. On multivariable analysis, the use of the Satinsky clamp was not associated with increase in intraoperative or Clavien ≥3 postoperative complications, positive surgical margin rate or percentage change in estimated glomerular filtration rate. A Satinsky clamp can be a backup option for hilar clamping during challenging RPN cases, but requires careful technique, and was rarely necessary.",
keywords = "Hilar clamping, Indications for Satinsky clamp, Satinsky clamp",
author = "Newaj Abdullah and Haider Rahbar and Ravi Barod and Deepansh Dalela and Jeff Larson and Michael Johnson and Alon Mass and Homayoun Zargar and Jihad Kaouk and Allaf, {Mohamad E} and Sam Bhayani and Michael Stifelman and Craig Rogers",
year = "2016",
month = "6",
day = "21",
doi = "10.1007/s11701-016-0611-y",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--5",
journal = "Journal of Robotic Surgery",
issn = "1863-2483",
publisher = "Springer London",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Use of the Satinsky clamp for hilar clamping during robotic partial nephrectomy

T2 - indications, technique, and multi-center outcomes

AU - Abdullah, Newaj

AU - Rahbar, Haider

AU - Barod, Ravi

AU - Dalela, Deepansh

AU - Larson, Jeff

AU - Johnson, Michael

AU - Mass, Alon

AU - Zargar, Homayoun

AU - Kaouk, Jihad

AU - Allaf, Mohamad E

AU - Bhayani, Sam

AU - Stifelman, Michael

AU - Rogers, Craig

PY - 2016/6/21

Y1 - 2016/6/21

N2 - A Satinsky clamp may be a backup option for hilar clamping during robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) if there are challenges with application of bulldog clamps, but there are potential safety concerns. We evaluate outcomes of RPN using Satinsky vs. bulldog clamps, and provide tips for safe use of the Satinsky as a backup option. Using a multi-center database, we identified 1073 patients who underwent RPN between 2006 and 2013, and had information available about method of hilar clamping (bulldog clamp vs. Satinsky clamp). Patient baseline characteristics, tumor features, and perioperative outcomes were compared between the Satinsky and bulldog clamp groups. A Satinsky clamp was used for hilar clamping in 94 (8.8 %) RPN cases, and bulldog clamps were used in 979 (91.2 %) cases. The use of a Satinsky clamp was associated with greater operative time (198 vs. 175 min, p <0.001), estimated blood loss (EBL, 200 vs. 100 ml, p <0.001), warm ischemia time (WIT, 20 vs. 19 min, p = 0.036), transfusion rate (12.8 vs. 4.8 %, p = 0.001), and hospital stay (3 vs. 2 days, p <0.001). Tumor characteristics and number of renal vessels were similar between groups. There were six intraoperative complications in the Satinsky clamp group, but none were directly related to the Satinsky clamp. On multivariable analysis, the use of the Satinsky clamp was not associated with increase in intraoperative or Clavien ≥3 postoperative complications, positive surgical margin rate or percentage change in estimated glomerular filtration rate. A Satinsky clamp can be a backup option for hilar clamping during challenging RPN cases, but requires careful technique, and was rarely necessary.

AB - A Satinsky clamp may be a backup option for hilar clamping during robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) if there are challenges with application of bulldog clamps, but there are potential safety concerns. We evaluate outcomes of RPN using Satinsky vs. bulldog clamps, and provide tips for safe use of the Satinsky as a backup option. Using a multi-center database, we identified 1073 patients who underwent RPN between 2006 and 2013, and had information available about method of hilar clamping (bulldog clamp vs. Satinsky clamp). Patient baseline characteristics, tumor features, and perioperative outcomes were compared between the Satinsky and bulldog clamp groups. A Satinsky clamp was used for hilar clamping in 94 (8.8 %) RPN cases, and bulldog clamps were used in 979 (91.2 %) cases. The use of a Satinsky clamp was associated with greater operative time (198 vs. 175 min, p <0.001), estimated blood loss (EBL, 200 vs. 100 ml, p <0.001), warm ischemia time (WIT, 20 vs. 19 min, p = 0.036), transfusion rate (12.8 vs. 4.8 %, p = 0.001), and hospital stay (3 vs. 2 days, p <0.001). Tumor characteristics and number of renal vessels were similar between groups. There were six intraoperative complications in the Satinsky clamp group, but none were directly related to the Satinsky clamp. On multivariable analysis, the use of the Satinsky clamp was not associated with increase in intraoperative or Clavien ≥3 postoperative complications, positive surgical margin rate or percentage change in estimated glomerular filtration rate. A Satinsky clamp can be a backup option for hilar clamping during challenging RPN cases, but requires careful technique, and was rarely necessary.

KW - Hilar clamping

KW - Indications for Satinsky clamp

KW - Satinsky clamp

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84975253341&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84975253341&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11701-016-0611-y

DO - 10.1007/s11701-016-0611-y

M3 - Article

SP - 1

EP - 5

JO - Journal of Robotic Surgery

JF - Journal of Robotic Surgery

SN - 1863-2483

ER -