-
International Braz J Urol : Official... 2022The predictors of trifecta achievement in partial nephrectomy (PN) were poorly inquired and remained a controversial area of discovery. To evaluate predictive factors of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The predictors of trifecta achievement in partial nephrectomy (PN) were poorly inquired and remained a controversial area of discovery. To evaluate predictive factors of trifecta achievement in patients undergoing PN.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed to identify relevant articles. Only studies focusing on postoperative trifecta achievement and exploring its predictor with multivariable analyses were included. The trifecta achievement was defined as negative surgical margins, warm ischemia time <25 minutes, and no complications. Merged odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to evaluate the predictive effect.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies with 7066 patients meeting the inclusion criteria were included. The rate of trifecta achievement ranged from 43.3% to 78.6%. Merged results showed that preoperative eGFR (OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.02, P=0.02), operative time (OR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.00, P=0.02), estimated blood loss (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.00, P <0.001), tumor size (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.58, 0.84, P <0.001), medium (OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.18, 0.84, P=0.02) and high PADUA score (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.08, 0.64, P=0.005) were independently associated with trifecta achievement. A publication bias was identified for tumor size. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of result for tumor size.
CONCLUSIONS
Larger tumor size, medium and high PADUA score are associated with decreased probability of trifecta achievement. After verifying by further high-quality studies, these variables can be incorporated into tools to predict probability of trifecta achievement during clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Nephrectomy; Retrospective Studies; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34115456
DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2021.0095 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022Minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) and focal therapy (FT) are popular trends for small renal masses (SRMs). However, there is currently no systematic...
BACKGROUND
Minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) and focal therapy (FT) are popular trends for small renal masses (SRMs). However, there is currently no systematic comparison between MIPN and FT of SRMs. Therefore, we systematically study the perioperative, renal functional, and oncologic outcomes of MIPN and FT in SRMs.
METHODS
We have searched the Embase, Cochrane Library, and PubMed for articles between MIPN (robot-assisted partial nephrectomy and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy) and FT {radiofrequency ablation (RFA), microwave ablation (MWA), cryoablation (CA), irreversible electroporation, non-thermal [irreversible electroporation (IRE)] ablation, and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)}. We calculated pooled mean difference (MD), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (CRD42021260787).
RESULTS
A total of 26 articles (n = 4,420) were included in the study. Compared with MIPN, the operating time (OP) of FT had significantly lower (SMD, -1.20; CI, -1.77 to -0.63; I = 97.6%, P < 0.0001), estimated blood loss (EBL) of FT had significantly less (SMD, -1.20; CI, -1.77 to -0.63; I = 97.6%, P < 0.0001), length of stay (LOS) had shorter (SMD, -0.90; CI, -1.26 to -0.53; I = 92.2%, P < 0.0001), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of FT was significantly lower decrease (SMD, -0.90; CI, -1.26 to -0.53; I = 92.2%, P < 0.0001). However, FT possessed lower risk in minor complications (Clavien 1-2) (OR, 0.69; CI, 0.45 to 1.07; I = 47%, P = 0.023) and overall complications (OR, 0.71; CI, 0.51 to 0.99; I = 49.2%, P = 0.008). Finally, there are no obvious difference between FT and MIPN in local recurrence, distant metastasis, and major complications (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
FT has more advantages in protecting kidney function, reducing bleeding, shortening operating time, and shortening the length of stay. There is no difference in local recurrence, distant metastasis, and major complications. For the minimally invasive era, we need to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of all aspects to make comprehensive choices.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier PROSPERO (CRD42021260787).
PubMed: 35692758
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.732714 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jun 2023The present study aimed to conduct a pooled analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) with open partial nephrectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The present study aimed to conduct a pooled analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) with open partial nephrectomy (OPN) in patients with complex renal tumors (defined as PADUA or RENAL score ≥7).
METHODS
The present study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JS9/A394 . We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases until October 2022. MIPN and OPN-controlled trials for complex renal tumors were included. The primary outcomes were perioperative results, complications, renal function, and oncologic outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of 2405 patients were included in 13 studies. MIPN outperformed OPN in terms of hospital stay [weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.84 days, 95% CI -2.35 to -1.33; P <0.00001], blood loss (WMD -52.42 ml, 95% CI -71.43 to -33.41; P <0.00001), transfusion rates [odds ratio (OR) 0.34, 95% CI 0.17-0.67; P =0.002], major complications (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40-0.86; P =0.007) and overall complications (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.31-0.59; P <0.0001), while operative time, warm ischemia time, conversion to radical nephrectomy rates, estimated glomerular decline, positive surgical margins, local recurrence, overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and cancer-specific survival were not significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS
The present study demonstrated that MIPN was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay, less blood loss, and fewer complications in treating complex renal tumors. MIPN may be considered a better treatment for patients with complex tumors when technically feasible.
Topics: Humans; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome; Kidney Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Nephrectomy
PubMed: 37094827
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000397 -
Journal of Endourology Jul 2018To compare the outcomes of retroperitoneal vs transperitoneal approach for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN).
OBJECTIVES
To compare the outcomes of retroperitoneal vs transperitoneal approach for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed through January 2018 using PubMed, Scopus, and Ovid databases. Article selection proceeded according to the search strategy based on PRISMA criteria. Only studies comparing retroperitoneal to transperitoneal approach for RAPN were deemed eligible for inclusion.
RESULTS
Seven retrospective case-control studies were identified and included in the analysis, with a total number of 1379 patients (866 for transperitoneal group; 513 for retroperitoneal group). In the retroperitoneal group, tumors were slightly larger [weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.29 cm; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.04-0.54; p = 0.02], and more frequently located posterior/lateral (odds ratio: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.41-0.90; p = 0.01). In two of the studies only posterior tumors had been included. Both operating time (WMD 20.17 min; 95% CI 6.46-33.88; p = 0.004) and estimated blood loss (WMD 54.57 mL; 95% CI 6.73-102.4; p = 0.03) were significantly lower in the retroperitoneal group. In addition, length of stay was significantly shorter in the retroperitoneal group (WMD 0.46 days; CI 95% 0.15-0.76; p = 0.003). No differences were found regarding overall (p = 0.67) and major (p = 0.82) postoperative complications, warm ischemia time (p = 0.96), and positive surgical margins (p = 0.95).
CONCLUSIONS
Retroperitoneal RAPN can offer in select patients similar outcomes to those of the most common transperitoneal RAPN. Furthermore, it may be particularly advantageous for posterior upper pole and perihilar tumors and associated with reduction in operative time and hospital stay. Robotic surgeons should be ideally familiar with both approaches to adapt their surgical strategy to confront renal neoplasms from a position of technical advantage and ultimately optimize outcomes.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Case-Control Studies; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Length of Stay; Margins of Excision; Nephrectomy; Odds Ratio; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Retroperitoneal Space; Retrospective Studies; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Warm Ischemia
PubMed: 29695171
DOI: 10.1089/end.2018.0211 -
Medicine Dec 2015Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has emerged as an alternative treatment to surgical partial nephrectomy (PN) in the treatment of small renal tumors (SRTs). But its safety... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has emerged as an alternative treatment to surgical partial nephrectomy (PN) in the treatment of small renal tumors (SRTs). But its safety and oncological efficacy are still controversial. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the peritoperative and oncological outcomes of RFA and PN in the treatment of SRTs. Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched to identify eligible studies that compared the RFA and PN in the treatment of SRTs. Twelve retrospective studies that compared RFA with PN in the treatment of SRTs met our selection criterion and were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results indicated that the local recurrence rate (4.14% vs 4.10%, RR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.68, 2.07, P = 0.550) and distant metastases rate (2.76% vs 1.89%, RR: 1.31, 95% CI: 0.70, 2.46, P = 0.686) were not significantly different between the RFA group and the PN group. In terms of perioperative outcomes, RFA was associated with shorter length of stay (LOS) (WMD: -2.02 days, 95% CI: -2.77, -1.27, P < 0.001), lower eGFR decline after treatment (WMD: -3.90, 95% CI: -6.660, -1.140, P = 0.006). However, the overall perioperative complication rate (7.5% vs 6.2%, RR:1.10, 95% CI: 0.64, 1.87, P = 0.740) and the major complication rate (3.7% vs 4.4%, RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.43, 1.60, P = 0.579) were both similar between RFA and PN groups. Compared with PN, RFA achieves an equal oncological outcome for SRTs with similar local recurrence rate and distant metastases rate. Additionally, RFA is associated with a similar perioperative complication rate, lower decline of eGFR, and shorter LOS. Therefore, RFA is an effective option in the treatment of SRTs for selected patients.
Topics: Catheter Ablation; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Nephrectomy
PubMed: 26683944
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002255 -
The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical... Dec 2015Our study was to collect the data available in the literature on radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and partial nephrectomy (PN) and conduct a cumulative analysis on... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Our study was to collect the data available in the literature on radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and partial nephrectomy (PN) and conduct a cumulative analysis on perioperative outcomes, renal function outcomes, and survival to evaluate the overall safety and efficacy of RFA versus PN for small renal cell cancer (SRCC). A literature search was carried out using various electronic databases. Data including age, tumor size, comorbid disease, operation duration, hospital stay, pre- and postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), major and minor complications, and local tumor recurrence and metastasis were collected for meta-analysis. Sixteen studies were included for this meta-analysis. The age of patients treated with RFA was significantly older than that of patients treated with PN [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 5.07 years]. There were more patients with cardiovascular disease in RFA group as compared with PN group [odds ratio (OR) = 4.24] before treatment. RFA was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay compared with PN (WMD = -2.02 days). No significant difference was found in major and minor complications between the two groups (major: OR = 0.74; minor: OR = 0.45). Preoperative eGFR and eGFR decline in RFA patients was significantly lower than that in PN patients (WMD = -7.27 and -4.82, respectively), whereas there was no significant difference in postoperative eGFR (WMD = -1.18). The local tumor recurrence rate in RFA group was higher than that in PN group (OR = 1.81). However, the distant metastasis rate was no statistical difference between the two groups (OR = 1.63). RFA is a suitable therapeutic option for older patients and those at high risk for SRCC because of a low risk of operation and better preservation of renal function.
Topics: Catheter Ablation; Glomerular Filtration Rate; Humans; Kidney; Kidney Neoplasms; Neoplasm Metastasis; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Nephrectomy; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome; Tumor Burden
PubMed: 26709228
DOI: 10.1016/j.kjms.2015.09.007 -
Journal of Vascular and Interventional... Jan 2018A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials was undertaken to compare percutaneous thermal ablation versus partial nephrectomy (PN) for stage T1 renal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials was undertaken to compare percutaneous thermal ablation versus partial nephrectomy (PN) for stage T1 renal tumors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A comprehensive search of major databases was conducted from October 2000 to July 2016. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were followed. Incidences of all-cause mortality (ACM), cancer-specific mortality (CSM), local recurrence (LR), and metastases, as well as complication rates and changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), were evaluated.
RESULTS
Inclusion criteria were met by 15 of 961 papers. These studies represented 3,974 patients who had undergone an ablative procedure (cryoablation or radiofrequency ablation; n = 1,455; 37%) or PN (n = 2,519; 63%). ACM and CSM rates were higher for ablation than for PN (hazard ratio [HR], 2.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.54-2.87 [P < .05]; HR, 3.84; 95% CI, 1.66-8.88 [P < .05], respectively). No statistically significant difference in LR rate or risk of metastasis was seen between ablation and PN (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.79-2.22 [P = .22]; HR, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.67-5.01 [P = 0.23], respectively). Complication rates were lower for ablation than for PN (13% vs 17.6%; odds ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.25-0.94; P < .05). A significantly greater decrease in eGFR was observed after PN (13.09 mL/min/1.73 m) vs ablation therapy (4.47 mL/min/1.73 m).
CONCLUSIONS
Thermal ablation showed no significant difference in LR or metastases compared with PN. Thermal ablation was associated with a lower morbidity rate and a lesser reduction in eGFR compared with PN, but with higher ACM and CSM rates.
Topics: Catheter Ablation; Cryosurgery; Glomerular Filtration Rate; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Neoplasm Metastasis; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasm Staging; Nephrectomy; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 29102464
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2017.08.013 -
Scandinavian Journal of Urology Dec 2017Current guidelines recommend partial nephrectomy for the management of T1a tumours. Adherent perinephric fat (APF) has been recognized as a complicating feature of such... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Current guidelines recommend partial nephrectomy for the management of T1a tumours. Adherent perinephric fat (APF) has been recognized as a complicating feature of such surgery. The objective of this article was to present a systematic review of the published literature investigating APF aetiology, risk factors and outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
To identify relevant studies, the PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases were searched from 1990 to 2017.
RESULTS
Eight studies studying APF were identified. The aetiology of APF appears to be multifactorial, but is thought to be associated with a systemic, chronic inflammatory state secondary to metabolic syndrome. Several risk factors have been identified. Clinically, APF is more prevalent in ageing and male populations, particularly those with high body mass index and waist measurements. Radiological risk factors for APF include increased perinephric fat thickness and stranding, which can be combined to produce the Mayo Adhesive Probability (MAP) score, a predictive index that has been validated in small, external cohorts. The presence of APF at partial nephrectomy is associated with increased operative time and estimated blood loss. However, there is no documented increase in warm ischaemia time or perioperative complications in patients with APF.
CONCLUSIONS
More studies are required to identify outcomes and risk factors for APF. Early identification of patients with APF can allow surgeons to guide preoperative planning and patient assessment.
Topics: Age Factors; Body Mass Index; Humans; Intra-Abdominal Fat; Intraoperative Complications; Kidney Neoplasms; Nephrectomy; Risk Factors; Sex Factors; Waist Circumference
PubMed: 28784033
DOI: 10.1080/21681805.2017.1357656 -
The American Surgeon Jan 2021Adoption of the robotic surgical platform for small renal cancers has rapidly expanded, but its utility compared to other approaches has not been established. The...
BACKGROUND
Adoption of the robotic surgical platform for small renal cancers has rapidly expanded, but its utility compared to other approaches has not been established. The objective of this review is to assess perioperative and long-term oncologic and functional outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) compared to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN).
METHODS
A search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane (2010-2019) was conducted. Of 3877 articles screened, 7 observational studies were included.
RESULTS
RAPN was associated with 24-50 mL less intraoperative blood loss compared to LPN and 39-84 mL less than OPN. RAPN also demonstrated trends of other postoperative benefits, such as shorter length of stay and fewer major complications. Several studies reported better long-term functional kidney outcomes, but these findings were inconsistent. Recurrence and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were similar across groups. While RAPN had a 5-year CSS of 90.1%-97.9%, LPN and OPN had survival rates of 85.9%-86.9% and 88.5-96.3% respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
RAPN may be associated with a lower estimated blood loss and comparable long-term outcomes when compared to other surgical approaches. However, additional randomized or propensity matched studies are warranted to fully assess long-term functional kidney and oncologic outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Laparoscopy; Nephrectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32902308
DOI: 10.1177/0003134820948912 -
BJU International Apr 2024To compare intra- and postoperative outcomes between off-clamp and on-clamp robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN), using data from randomised controlled trials... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare intra- and postoperative outcomes between off-clamp and on-clamp robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN), using data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or covariate-matched studies (propensity score-matched or matched-pair analysis).
METHODS
A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant literature review was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and CENTRAL for relevant studies comparing off-clamp to on-clamp RAPN. Primary outcomes were estimated blood loss, postoperative percentage decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and margin positive rate. Secondary outcomes were operative time, postoperative eGFR, length of stay, all postoperative complications, major complications, and need for transfusion. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to generate mean differences (MDs) or odds ratios (ORs).
RESULTS
A total of 10 studies (2307 patients) were shortlisted for analysis. There was no significant difference in estimated operative blood loss between off-clamp and on-clamp RAPN (MD 21.9 mL, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.9 to 44.7 mL; P = 0.06, I = 58%). Off-clamp RAPN yielded a smaller postoperative eGFR deterioration (MD 3.10%, 95% CI 1.05-5.16%; P = 0.008, I = 13%) and lower odds of margin positivity (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40-0.94; P = 0.03, I = 0%). No significant differences were found for all secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Off-clamp and on-clamp RAPN are similarly effective approaches for selected renal masses. Within the classic trifecta of PN outcomes, off-clamp RAPN yields similar rates of perioperative complications and may possibly offer better preservation of renal function and reduced margin-positive rates.
Topics: Humans; Robotics; Kidney Neoplasms; Nephrectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Glomerular Filtration Rate; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 38069544
DOI: 10.1111/bju.16250