-
International Journal of Surgery... Jun 2016To compare the perioperative outcomes of the transperitoneal (TP) and retroperitoneal (RP) approaches in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To compare the perioperative outcomes of the transperitoneal (TP) and retroperitoneal (RP) approaches in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN).
METHODS
A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify relevant studies up to March 2016. All studies with enough data comparing TP-RAPN with RP-RAPN were included. Outcomes of interest were complication, conversion, operative time (OT), warm ischemia time (WIT), estimated blood loss (EBL), and positive surgical margin (PSM). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect model. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots.
RESULTS
Four studies with the total number of 449 patients assessing TP-RAPN (n = 229) versus RP-RAPN (n = 220) were included. There was no significant difference between the two groups in any of demographic variables. There were also no significant differences between TP-RAPN and RP-RAPN groups regarding tumor size, tumor laterality, R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score, and tumor pathology. There was marginally significant difference between the two groups regarding OT (p = 0.05, WMD: 28.03; 95% CI, 0.41-55.65). No significant differences were found regarding complication, conversion, WIT, EBL, and PSM. No obvious publication bias was observed.
CONCLUSIONS
The present meta-analysis suggests that RP-RAPN appears to be equally safe and efficacious in terms of complication, conversion, WIT, EBL and PSM compared with TP-RAPN. In addition, RP-RAPN has marginally significant advantage of shorter OT. Randomized controlled trials and high-quality observational cohort studies with large sample size and long-term follow-up are needed to update our findings.
Topics: Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Laparoscopy; Nephrectomy; Peritoneal Cavity; Retroperitoneal Space; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27107660
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.04.023 -
Indian Journal of Urology : IJU :... 2022Multiple studies have been published recently assessing feasibility of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for moderate to highly complex renal masses. Some... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Multiple studies have been published recently assessing feasibility of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for moderate to highly complex renal masses. Some studies have even compared partial nephrectomy (PN) performed through various modalities such as open PN (OPN) versus RAPN and laparoscopic PN (LPN) versus OPN. The primary aim of this review was to analyze perioperative outcomes such as warm ischemia time (WIT), duration of surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, blood transfusion, length of stay, and margin status following RAPN for complex renal masses. Another objective was to compare perioperative outcomes following various surgical modalities, i.e., OPN, LPN, or RAPN.
METHODS
Literature search was conducted to identify studies reporting perioperative outcomes following RAPN for moderate (Radius, Endophytic/Exophytic, Nearness, Anterior/posterior location [RENAL] score 7-9 or Preoperative Aspects of Dimension used for anatomic classification [PADUA] score 8-9) to high complexity renal masses (RENAL or PADUA score ≥ 10). Meta-analysis of robotic versus OPN and robotic versus LPN was also performed. Study protocol was registered with PROPSERO (CRD42019121259).
RESULTS
In this review, 22 studies including 2,659 patients were included. Mean duration of surgery, WIT, and EBL was 132.5-250.8 min, 15.5-30 min, and 100-321 ml, respectively. From pooled analysis, positive surgical margin, need for blood transfusion, minor and major complications were seen in 3.9%, 5.2%, 19.3%, and 6.3% of the patients. No significant difference was noted between RAPN and LPN for any of the perioperative outcomes. Compared to OPN, RAPN had significantly lower EBL, complications rate, and need for transfusion.
CONCLUSIONS
RAPN for moderate to high complexity renal masses is associated with acceptable perioperative outcomes. LPN and RAPN were equal in terms of perioperative outcomes for complex masses whereas, OPN had significantly higher blood loss, complications rate, and need for transfusion as compared to RAPN.
PubMed: 35983124
DOI: 10.4103/iju.iju_393_21 -
Minerva Urology and Nephrology Dec 2023In the absence of consensus on the optimal approach to renorrhaphy in partial nephrectomy, this systematic review aims to assess the various renorrhaphy techniques and...
INTRODUCTION
In the absence of consensus on the optimal approach to renorrhaphy in partial nephrectomy, this systematic review aims to assess the various renorrhaphy techniques and their impact on surgical outcomes.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic review of the literature was performed in March 2022, using PubMed and Scopus, without time restrictions and research filters for studies investigating renorrhaphy techniques in partial nephrectomy. Studies providing sufficient details on renorrhaphy techniques and their outcomes during minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (PN) were included in this analysis.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Thirty-one studies with 5720 patients were included in the analysis. In most studies, tumor diameter was <4 cm. RENAL and PADUA scores as well as tumor locations were heterogeneous between the studies. The results of the use of hemostatic agents were conflicting among different studies with limited evidence regarding the benefits of its routine use in partial nephrectomy. The use of barbed and running sutures was associated with a reduced warm ischemia time. While some studies showed a decreased warm ischemia time when omitting cortical renorrhaphy, others found that it may lead to higher incidence of minor complications without any significant improvement in other outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
There is ongoing research to determine the optimal approach to renorrhaphy. The current evidence on the routine use of hemostatic agents is limited. The use of certain techniques such as barbed sutures, sliding clips and running sutures reduced the warm ischemia time. The omission of cortical renorrhaphy is still controversial.
Topics: Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Suture Techniques; Nephrectomy; Kidney; Hemostatics
PubMed: 38126283
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6051.23.05345-4 -
Journal of Cancer 2019: Cryoablation has been considered as the most efficacious ablative alternative to partial nephrectomy (PN) for selected patients. Our objective is to assess the... (Review)
Review
: Cryoablation has been considered as the most efficacious ablative alternative to partial nephrectomy (PN) for selected patients. Our objective is to assess the existing evidence relating to the safety and efficacy of cryoablation compared with PN for clinical T1 renal masses. : A comprehensive search of PMC, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify studies containing comparison of cryoablation and PN. By utilizing those included studies, a systematic review and cumulative meta-analyses were performed to assess the safety and efficacy between cryoablation and PN for T1 renal masses. : 17 retrospective studies providing available data were included in our study. Significant differences were found about all oncological variables including all-cause death, cancer-specific death, metastasis and local-recurrence (p < 0.001, p = 0.03, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively) between the PN group and the cryoablation group. The mean difference between two groups for percent estimated glomerular filtration rate decrease and creatinine increase was -4.84 and 0.15 respectively (p < 0.001 and p = 0.006, respectively). The incidences of overall and postoperative complications in the PN group were significantly higher than that in the cryoablation group (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively), but the result about intraoperative complications didn't show a significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.53). : Comparing with PN, cryoablation for clinical T1 renal tumors is associated with poorer oncological outcomes, but the existing disadvantages are accompanied by lower rate of overall and postoperative complications and superior renal functional preservation. For patients with imperative indications for nephron-sparing surgery who can't risk more invasive PN, cryoablation could be an attractive option. Owing to the inherent limitations of eligible studies, conclusions drawn from our meta-analyses should be interpreted cautiously and be confirmed further with well-designed randomized controlled trials with extensive follow-up length.
PubMed: 30854132
DOI: 10.7150/jca.28881 -
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 2023The perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of patients with solitary small renal tumors (SRMs) treated with ablation (AT) or partial nephrectomy (PN) remain... (Review)
Review
Perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes after ablation or partial nephrectomy for solitary renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative trials.
OBJECTIVES
The perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of patients with solitary small renal tumors (SRMs) treated with ablation (AT) or partial nephrectomy (PN) remain controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of these two surgical techniques.
METHODS
In April 2023, we conducted a literature search in several widely used databases worldwide, including PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. Review Manager was used to compare various parameters. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022377157).
RESULTS
Our final meta-analysis included 13 cohort studies with a total of 2,107 patients. Compared to partial nephrectomy (PN), ablation (AT) had shorter hospital stays (WMD -2.37 days, 95% CI -3.05 to -1.69; p < 0.00001), shorter operating times (WMD -57.06 min, 95% CI -88.92 to -25.19; p = 0.0004), less postoperative creatinine increases (WMD -0.17 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.05; p = 0.006), less postoperative glomerular filtration rate decreases (WMD -9.84 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI -14.25 to -5.44; p < 0.0001), less postoperative new-onset chronic kidney disease (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.71; p = 0.005), and less intraoperative blood loss (WMD -285.92 ml, 95% CI -428.44 to -143.40; p < 0.0001). The transfusion rate was lower in the ablation group (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.51; p = 0.001). The risk of local recurrence was higher in the ablation group (OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.27 to 6.89; p = 0.01), while the risk of distant metastasis was higher in the partial nephrectomy group (OR 2.81, 95% CI 1.28 to 6.18; p = 0.01). The intraoperative and postoperative complication rates were lower in the ablation group (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.62; p = 0.004 and OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.38; p < 0.00001, respectively). However, overall survival, postoperative dialysis rate, and tumor-specific survival were not different between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Our data suggest that ablation and partial nephrectomy are equally safe and effective in the treatment of small solitary kidney tumors and are better options for patients with poor preoperative physical condition or poor renal function.
PubMed: 37434978
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1202587 -
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 -
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 -
Urologic Oncology Jan 2016Radical nephrectomy (RN, or total nephrectomy) is the current gold-standard surgical treatment for children with Wilms tumors (WT). However, nephron-sparing surgery... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Radical nephrectomy (RN, or total nephrectomy) is the current gold-standard surgical treatment for children with Wilms tumors (WT). However, nephron-sparing surgery (NSS, or partial nephrectomy) has recently been gaining increasing attention. The objective of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of NSS as compared with RN for the treatment of children with WT.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, clinicaltrials.gov, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and recently presented meeting abstracts for reports in English. The bibliographies of included studies were then hand-searched for any missed articles. The protocol was prospectively registered. Manuscripts were assessed and data abstracted in duplicate with differences resolved by the senior author. Owing to high heterogeneity among the final included studies, only a qualitative systematic review was performed; no formal meta-analysis was undertaken.
RESULTS
We identified 694 articles, 118 of which were selected for full-text review and 66 of which were included in the final analysis. Most studies were single- or multi-institution retrospective case series (60, 91%), with a small number of prospective cohort studies (6, 9%) and 1 administrative database analysis. Most studies were from Europe (27, 41%) or North America (21, 32%). Nearly half (32, 48%) of studies those were included were dated from 2010 or later. In total, data on 4,002 patients were included, of whom 1,040 (26%) underwent NSS and 2,962 (74%) underwent NSS. Reported rupture rates were similar between RN and NSS (13% vs. 7%), as were recurrence rates (12% vs. 11%) and survival rates (85% vs. 88%). However, these comparisons are limited by inherent biases in the design and reporting of most included studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Most contemporary studies reporting the use of NSS in children with WT report similar long-term outcomes to RN. However, most existing studies are limited by their small numbers, inconsistent reporting, and methodological biases. There are significant opportunities for future research on the use of NSS in children with WT, including issues related to surgical quality, optimal technique, timing and duration of chemotherapy, and variation in the use of NSS among centers.
Topics: Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Nephrons; Organ Sparing Treatments; Wilms Tumor
PubMed: 26254695
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.07.003