-
Urologia Internationalis 2022Hemostatic agents (HAs) are used to achieve hemostasis and prevent postoperative complications in multiple surgeries, but the role of HAs is ambiguous during partial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Hemostatic agents (HAs) are used to achieve hemostasis and prevent postoperative complications in multiple surgeries, but the role of HAs is ambiguous during partial nephrectomy (PN), so this study aimed to assess the role of HAs in PN.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies regarding the comparison of HA use alone and standard suturing during PN on January 17, 2020. RevMan 5.3 was used to conduct meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were performed based on surgical procedures and HA types.
RESULTS
Six studies involving 1,066 patients were included. The quality of studies was moderate to high. There were significant reductions in warm ischemia time (mean difference [MD] = -6.30 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] -7.70 to -4.90, p < 0.00001), operative time (MD = -19.81 min, 95% CI -27.54 to -12.08, p < 0.00001), and estimated blood loss (MD = -108.62 mL, 95% CI -177.27 to -39.9, p = 0.002) in the HA group, and HA use alone did not increase postoperative complications. The results were similar in the subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSION
HA may be an effective and safe surgical material in PN, which can improve postoperative outcomes. High-quality and randomly designed studies are needed to validate the applicability.
Topics: Hemostatics; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Nephrectomy; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome; Warm Ischemia
PubMed: 34350887
DOI: 10.1159/000518125 -
Cancers Mar 2023(1) Background: In recent years there have been advances in imaging techniques, in addition to progress in the surgery of renal tumors directed towards minimally... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: In recent years there have been advances in imaging techniques, in addition to progress in the surgery of renal tumors directed towards minimally invasive techniques. Thus, nephron-sparing surgery has become the gold standard for the treatment of T1 renal masses. The aim of this study is to investigate the benefits of robotic partial nephrectomy in comparison with laparoscopic nephrectomy. (2) Methods: We performed a systematic review according to the PRISMA criteria during September 2022. We included clinical trials, and cohort and case-control studies published between 2000 and 2022. This comprised studies performed in adult patients with T1 renal cancer and studies comparing robotic with open and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. A risk of bias assessment was performed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. (3) Results: We observed lower hot ischemia times in the robotic surgery groups, although at the cost of an increase in total operative time, without appreciating the differences in terms of serious surgical complications (Clavien III-V). (4) Conclusions: Robotic partial nephrectomy is a safe procedure, with a shorter learning curve than laparoscopic surgery and with all the benefits of minimally invasive surgery.
PubMed: 36980679
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15061793 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2021The choice of surgical method for clinically diagnosed T2 or higher stage kidney cancer remains controversial. Here, we systematically reviewed and collected published...
OBJECTIVE
The choice of surgical method for clinically diagnosed T2 or higher stage kidney cancer remains controversial. Here, we systematically reviewed and collected published comparative studies on renal function, oncologic outcomes, and perioperative results of partial nephrectomy (PN) versus radical nephrectomy (RN) for larger renal tumors (T2 and above), and performed a meta-analysis.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Following searches of PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase, the original studies on PN vs. RN in the treatment of T2 renal cancer were screened through strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. RevMan 5.4 was used for data analysis of the perioperative results, renal function, and oncologic outcomes of the two surgical methods for T2 renal tumor therapy. The weighted mean difference was used as the combined effect size for continuous variables, while the odds ratio (OR) or risk ratio (RR) was used as the combined effect size for binary variables. Both variables used a 95% confidence interval (CI) to estimate statistical accuracy. In cases with low heterogeneity, the fixed-effects model was used to pool the estimated value; otherwise, the random-effects model was used when significant heterogeneity was detected.
RESULTS
Fifteen retrospective studies including 5,056 patients who underwent nephrectomy (PN: 1975, RN: 3081) were included. The decline in estimated GFR (eGFR) after PN was lower than RN [(MD: -11.74 ml/min/1.73 m; 95% CI: -13.15, -10.32; p < 0.00001)]. The postoperative complication rate of PN was higher than that of PN (OR: 2.09; 95% CI: 1.56, 2.80; p < 0.00001)], and the postoperative overall survival (OS) of PN was higher than that of RN (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.65, 0.90; p = 0.002), and tumor recurrence (RR, 0.69; 95% CI: 0.53, 0.90; p = 0.007). No obvious publication bias was found in the funnel chart of the OS rates of the two groups of patients.
CONCLUSIONS
PN is beneficial for patients with T2 renal tumors in terms of OS and renal function protection. However, it is also associated with a higher risk of surgical complications.
PubMed: 34178668
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.680842 -
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 -
Clinical Imaging Aug 2021To evaluate the safety and efficacy of preoperative renal artery embolization of renal cell carcinoma in reducing intraoperative blood loss during subsequent partial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of preoperative renal artery embolization of renal cell carcinoma in reducing intraoperative blood loss during subsequent partial nephrectomy through a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The PubMed database was searched for articles published from 1970 to 2018 describing patients with renal cell carcinoma who underwent partial nephrectomy with and without preoperative embolization of the tumor. Demographic data, procedural techniques, and surgical outcomes were obtained when available. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to determine estimated blood loss in both groups of patients.
RESULTS
The literature search identified 14 relevant articles for systematic review, of which 4 articles provided sufficient data to be included in the meta-analysis. 270 patients (173 males, 97 females) underwent partial nephrectomy for RCC, of whom 222 received pre-operative embolization. There were 48 patients in our cohort that underwent partial nephrectomy for RCC without preoperative embolization. Random-effects meta-analysis demonstrated a significant difference between EBL in patients undergoing RAE prior to partial nephrectomy vs partial nephrectomy without preoperative embolization, with EBL of 154.0 ± 22.6 mL (n = 222) and 353.4 ± 69.6 mL (n = 478), respectively (p < 0.0001). Major complications occurred in 4.9% of patients undergoing pre-operative embolization followed by partial nephrectomy, whereas major complications occurred in 10.9% of patients undergoing partial nephrectomy without embolization (p = 0.01). Minor complications occurred in 5.8% of patients undergoing embolization and partial nephrectomy and in 19.0% of patients undergoing partial nephrectomy without embolization (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION
Renal artery embolization prior to surgical resection of renal cell carcinoma is safe and significantly reduces intraoperative blood loss in patients undergoing partial nephrectomy.
Topics: Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Embolization, Therapeutic; Female; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Male; Nephrectomy; Renal Artery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33964598
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2021.04.021 -
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 -
Urologic Oncology Mar 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the postoperative renal and cardiovascular outcomes of partial nephrectomy (PN) versus radical nephrectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the postoperative renal and cardiovascular outcomes of partial nephrectomy (PN) versus radical nephrectomy (RN) for the treatment of renal carcinoma. A systematic literature search was performed on scientific databases including Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from their inception to September 2021. Studies comparing renal and cardiovascular outcomes between PN and RN in patients with renal cancer were included. The generic inverse variance method with random-effects models was used to determine the pooled hazard ratios and odds ratio for each outcome. Quality Assessment for observational studies was guided by the New-Castle Ottawa Scale. Overall, a total of 31 studies (n=51,866) reported renal outcomes, while 11 studies (n= 101,678) reported cardiovascular outcomes. When compared to PN, RN had a higher rate of new-onset postoperative EGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m (HR 3.39; CI 2.45 - 4.70; I=93%; P=<0.00001) and EGFR <45 mL/min/1.73 m (HR 4.70; CI 2.26 - 9.79; I=98%; P=<0.0001). No difference was observed in new-onset advanced kidney disease and end-stage renal disease. A 19% reduction in cardiovascular events was observed in the PN group (HR 0.81; CI 0.70 - 0.93, P=0.002). No protective effect of PN was observed in new-onset or worsening hypertension (HR 0.85; CI 0.64 - 1.14, P=0.28) nor myocardial infarction (HR 0.86; CI 0.71 - 1.04, P=0.13). PN was associated with a decreased risk of postoperative early-stage CKD and cardiovascular events compared with RN. However, no benefit of PN over RN was observed in advanced CKD, new-onset or worsening hypertension, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular mortality.
Topics: Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Nephrectomy; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Hypertension; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Myocardial Infarction; ErbB Receptors; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Glomerular Filtration Rate
PubMed: 36642639
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.11.024 -
BJU International Oct 2023To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine the advantages and disadvantages of open (OPN), laparoscopic (LPN), and robot-assisted... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine the advantages and disadvantages of open (OPN), laparoscopic (LPN), and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) with particular attention to intraoperative, immediate postoperative, as well as longer-term functional and oncological outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-NMA guidelines. Binary data were compared using odds ratios (ORs). Mean differences (MDs) were used for continuous variables. ORs and MDs were extracted from the articles to compare the efficacy of the various surgical approaches. Statistical validity is guaranteed when the 95% credible interval does not include 1.
RESULTS
In total, there were 31 studies included in the NMA with a combined 7869 patients. Of these, 33.7% (2651/7869) underwent OPN, 20.8% (1636/7869) LPN, and 45.5% (3582/7689) RAPN. There was no difference for either LPN or RAPN as compared to OPN in ischaemia time, intraoperative complications, positive surgical margins, operative time or trifecta rate. The estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative complications and length of stay were all significantly reduced in RAPN when compared with OPN. The outcomes of RAPN and LPN were largely similar except the significantly reduced EBL in RAPN.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and NMA suggests that RAPN is the preferable operative approach for patients undergoing surgery for lower-staged RCC.
Topics: Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Robotics; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Nephrectomy; Postoperative Complications; Laparoscopy; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37259476
DOI: 10.1111/bju.16093 -
European Radiology Mar 2019To compare partial nephrectomy (PN), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), cryoablation (CRA) and microwave ablation (MWA) regarding oncologic, perioperative and functional... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To compare partial nephrectomy (PN), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), cryoablation (CRA) and microwave ablation (MWA) regarding oncologic, perioperative and functional outcomes.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE libraries were searched for studies comparing PN, RFA, CRA or MWA and reporting on any-cause or cancer-specific mortality, local recurrence, complications or renal function. Network meta-analyses were performed.
RESULTS
Forty-seven studies with 24,077 patients were included. Patients receiving RFA, CRA or MWA were older and had more comorbidities compared with PN. All-cause mortality was higher for CRA and RFA compared with PN (incidence rate ratio IRR = 2.58, IRR = 2.58, p < 0.001, respectively). No significant differences in cancer-specific mortality were evident. Local recurrence was higher for CRA, RFA and MWA compared with PN (IRR = 4.13, IRR = 1.79, IRR = 2.52, p < 0.05 respectively). A decline in renal function was less pronounced after RFA versus PN, CRA and MWA (mean difference in GFR MD = 6.49; MD = 5.82; MD = 10.89, p < 0.05 respectively).
CONCLUSION
Higher overall survival and local control of PN compared with ablative therapies did not translate into significantly better cancer-specific mortality. Most studies carried a high risk of bias by selecting younger and healthier patients for PN, which may drive superior survival and local control. Physicians should be aware of the lack of high-quality evidence and the potential benefits of ablative techniques for certain patients, including a superior complication profile and renal function preservation.
KEY POINTS
• Patients selected for ablation of small renal masses are older and have more comorbidities compared with those undergoing partial nephrectomy. • Partial nephrectomy yields lower all-cause mortality, which is probably biased by patient selection and does not translate into prolonged cancer-free survival. • The decline of renal function is smallest after radiofrequency ablation for small renal masses.
Topics: Ablation Techniques; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Nephrectomy; Network Meta-Analysis; Patient Selection; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30255245
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5660-3 -
European Urology May 2015Robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) is rapidly increasing; however, the benefit of RPN over laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) is controversial. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
Robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) is rapidly increasing; however, the benefit of RPN over laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) is controversial.
OBJECTIVE
To compare perioperative outcomes of RPN and LPN.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We searched Ovid-Medline, Ovid-Embase, the Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, KMbase, KISS, RISS, and KisTi from their inception through August 2013. Two independent reviewers extracted data using a standardized form. Quality of the selected studies was assessed using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of 23 studies and 2240 patients were included. All studies were cohort studies with no randomization, and the methodological quality varied. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding complications of Clavien-Dindo classification grades 1-2 (p=0.62), Clavien-Dindo classification grades 3-5 (p=0.78), change of serum creatinine (p=0.65), operative time (p=0.35), estimated blood loss (p=0.76), and positive margins (p=0.75). The RPN group had a significantly lower rate of conversion to open surgery (p=0.02) and conversion to radical surgery (p=0.0006), shorter warm ischemia time (WIT; p=0.005), smaller change of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; p=0.03), and shorter length of stay (LOS; p=0.004).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis shows that RPN is associated with more favorable results than LPN in conversion rate to open or radical surgery, WIT, change of eGFR, and shorter LOS. To establish the safety and effectiveness outcomes of robotic surgery, well-designed randomized clinical studies with long-term follow-up are needed.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Robotic partial nephrectomy (PN) is more favorable than laparoscopic PN in terms of lower conversion rate to radical nephrectomy, a favorable renal function indexed estimated glomerular filtration rate, shorter length of hospital stay, and shorter warm ischemia time.
Topics: Conversion to Open Surgery; Glomerular Filtration Rate; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Nephrectomy; Operative Time; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Robotics; Treatment Outcome; Warm Ischemia
PubMed: 25572825
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.028