647 692
promising results demonstrate that clinical evaluation in
humans is warranted.
Author contributions:
Jihad H. Kaouk had full access to all the data in the
study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the
accuracy of the data analysis.
Study concept and design:
Maurice, Ramirez, Kaouk.
Acquisition of data:
Kaouk.
Analysis and interpretation of data:
Maurice, Ramirez, Kaouk.
Drafting of the manuscript:
Maurice.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content:
Ramirez, Kaouk.
Statistical analysis:
Maurice.
Obtaining funding:
None.
Administrative, technical, or material support:
None.
Supervision:
Kaouk.
Other:
None.
Financial disclosures:
Jihad H. Kaouk certifies that all conflicts of interest,
including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations
relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript
(eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria,
stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed,
received, or pending), are the following: Jihad Kaouk is a consultant for
Endocare. The remaining other authors have nothing to discloses.
Funding/Support and role of the sponsor:
This research was supported by
Intuitive Surgical (Sunnyvale, CA, USA), who provided financial and
material support. The sponsor played a role in the design and conduct of
the study.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. eururo.2016.06.005.
References
[1]
Fan X, Lin T, Xu K, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy compared with conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy: a system- atic review andmeta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 2012; 62:601–12.
[2]
Kaouk JH, Haber GP, Goel RK, et al. Single-port laparoscopic surgery in urology: initial experience. Urology 2008;71:3–6.
[3]
Khanna R, Stein RJ, White MA, et al. Single institution experience with robot-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site renal procedures. J Endourol 2012;26:230–4.[4]
White MA, Autorino R, Spana G, Hillyer S, Stein RJ, Kaouk JH. Robotic laparoendoscopic single site urological surgery: analysis of 50 con- secutive cases. J Urol 2012;187:1696–701.
[5]
Komninos C, Shin TY, Tuliao P, et al. R-LESS partial nephrectomy trifecta outcome is inferior to multiport robotic partial nephrec- tomy: comparative analysis. Eur Urol 2014;66:512–7.[6]
Kaouk JH, Haber GP, Autorino R, et al. A novel robotic system for single-port urologic surgery: first clinical investigation. Eur Urol 2014;66:1033–43.[7]
Wright JL, Porter JR. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. J Urol 2005; 174:841–5.
[8]
Kim EH, Larson JA, Potretzke AM, Hulsey NK, Bhayani SB, Figenshau RS. Retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for posterior renal masses is associated with earlier hospital discharge: a single- institution retrospective comparison. J Endourol 2015;29:1137–42.
[9]
White WM, Goel RK, Kaouk JH. Single-port laparoscopic retroperi- toneal surgery: initial operative experience and comparative out- comes. Urology 2009;73:1279–82.
[10]
Kaouk JH, Khalifeh A, Hillyer S, Haber GP, Stein RJ, Autorino R. Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: step-by-step contemporary technique and surgical outcomes at a single high- volume institution. Eur Urol 2012;62:553–61.E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y 7 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 6 4 3 – 6 4 7
647