Acar, OmerIsik, Esin OzturkMut, TunaSaglican, YesimOnay, AslihanVural, MetinMusaoglu, AhmetEsen, Tarik2023-02-212023-02-212015-01-0110.1186/s40064-015-1274-2https://hdl.handle.net/11443/2159http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-1274-2Purpose: In this study we aimed to report a comparative analysis between open and robotic nephron sparing surgeries (NSS) from a single institutional database. Methods: Patients who have undergone NSS during the robotic era of our institution were included in this study. Open (n = 74) and robotic (n = 59) groups were compared regarding trifecta outcome. Trifecta was defined aswarm ischemia time (WIT) <25 min, negative surgical margins and the absence of perioperative complications. Results: A total of 57 (77 \%) and 45 (76 \%) patients in the open and robotic groups, respectively achieved the trifecta outcome. Overall trifecta rate was 77 \% (n = 102/133). The only statistically significant difference between trifecta positive and trifecta negative patients was the length of hospitalization (LOH). Except LOHnone of the tested parameters were shown to be predictive of trifecta outcome on univariate and multivariate analyses. Concerning trifecta positive patientsthose in the open surgery group had larger tumors with a higher degree of morphometric complexity and were hospitalized for a longer period of time. Additionally, operative duration was significantly higher in the robotic group. Conclusions: In our cohort, no significant difference in achieving the trifecta outcome was reported after open and robotic NSS. Length of hospitalization was the only parameter that differed significantly between trifecta positive and trifecta negative patients. Surgical approach was not a significant predictor of simultaneous achievement of trifecta outcomes. Irrespective of the trifecta definitionlarger and more complicated tumors were handled via open NSS.Kidney cancerRoboticsNephron-sparing surgeryTrifectaArticleWOS:000360587200001