Skip to main content
. 2021 Jul-Sep;25(3):e2021.00045. doi: 10.4293/JSLS.2021.00045

Table 5.

Summary of Previous Reports of RARP in Renal Transplant Patients

Study Years Number of Patients Mean Operative Time (Min) EBL (ml); Transfusion (%) Complications (%) LOS (Days) BCR (%) Continence Rate (%) F/U (Months)
Jhaveri et al. 2008 1 200 400; 100 0 3 - 100 1.5
Smith et al. 2005–2008 3a 322 75; - 0 2.3 0 100 13
Polcari et al. 2004–2010 7 186 - 43 (3/7) 1.8 14 (1/7) - 16
Wagener et al. 2012 1 220 300; - 0 - 0 100 9
Ghazi et al. 2012 1 130 125; - 0 2 - - -
Le Clerc et al. 2009–2013 12 241 647; 8 42 (5) - 18 (2/12) - 31
Iizuka et al. 2013–2014 3 162 52; 0 33 (1/3) 8 33 (1/3) 18
Mistretta et al. 2012–2016 9 160 100; 0 11 (1/9) 4 22 (2/9) 78 (7/9) 42
Iwamoto et al. 2008–2017` 9b 153 50; 0 0 6 11 (1/9) - 27
Moreno Sierra et al. 2015 4 196 - - 3.2 25% (1/4) - -
Current study 2014–2019 14 130 110; 0 0 1 21 (3/14) 88 (7/8) 12

Abbreviations: EBL: estimated blood loss; LOS: length of stay; BCR: biochemical recurrence; F/U: follow up.

aThe study included three renal transplant recipients and 225 non transplant patients and compared their outcomes.

bThe study included a total of thirteen renal transplant recipients, nine of which underwent RARP, three underwent LRP and one underwent open retropubic RP; it also included 78 nontransplant patients who underwent RARP. It compared the outcomes of the patients undergoing the robotic associated approach to the laparoscopic approach as well as to the nontransplant patient population.