-
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 2023The effect of perioperative blood transfusion (PBT) on postoperative survival in RCC patients who underwent partial nephrectomy (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) remains...
BACKGROUND
The effect of perioperative blood transfusion (PBT) on postoperative survival in RCC patients who underwent partial nephrectomy (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) remains controversial. Two meta-analyses in 2018 and 2019 reported the postoperative mortality of PBT patients with RCC, but they did not investigate the effect on the survival of patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant literature to demonstrate whether PBT affected postoperative survival in RCC patients who received nephrectomy.
METHODS
Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched. Studies comparing RCC patients with or without PBT following either RN or PN were included in this analysis. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included literature, and hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS), as well as 95% confidence intervals, were considered as effect sizes. All data were processed using Stata 15.1.
RESULTS
Ten retrospective studies involving 19,240 patients were included in this analysis, with the publication dates ranging from 2014 to 2022. Evidence revealed that PBT was significantly associated with the decline of OS (HR, 2.62; 95%CI: 1,98-3.46), RFS (HR, 2.55; 95%CI: 1.74-3.75), and CSS (HR, 3.15; 95%CI: 2.3-4.31) values. There was high heterogeneity among the study results due to the retrospective nature and the low quality of the included studies. Subgroup analysis findings suggested that the heterogeneity of this study might be caused by different tumor stages in the included articles. Evidence implied that PBT had no significant influence on RFS and CSS with or without robotic assistance, but it was still linked to worse OS (combined HR; 2.54 95% CI: 1.18, 5.47). Furthermore, the subgroup analysis with intraoperative blood loss lower than 800 ML revealed that PBT had no substantial impact on OS and CSS of postoperative RCC patients, whereas it was correlated with poor RFS (1.42, 95% CI: 1.02-1.97).
CONCLUSIONS
RCC patients undergoing PBT after nephrectomy had poorer survival.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022363106.
PubMed: 36874080
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1092734 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023In recent years, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been widely used in the field of urology, especially in radical cystectomy and radical prostatectomy, and has...
OBJECTIVES
In recent years, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been widely used in the field of urology, especially in radical cystectomy and radical prostatectomy, and has demonstrated its advantages. Although studies on the application of ERAS in partial nephrectomy for renal tumors are increasing, the conclusions are mixed, especially in terms of postoperative complications, etc, and its safety and efficacy are questionable. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of ERAS in the application of partial nephrectomy for renal tumors.
METHODS
Pubmed, Embase, Cohrance library, Web of science and Chinese databases (CNKI, VIP, Wangfang and CBM) were systematically searched for all published literature related to the application of enhanced recovery after surgery in partial nephrectomy for renal tumors from the date of establishment to July 15, 2022, and the literature was screened by inclusion/exclusion criteria. The quality of the literature was evaluated for each of the included literature. This Meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022351038) and data were processed using Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 16.0SE. The results were presented and analyzed by weighted mean difference (WMD), Standard Mean Difference (SMD) and risk ratio (RR) at their 95% confidence interval (CI). Finally, the limitations of this study are analyzed in order to provide a more objective view of the results of this study.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis included 35 literature, including 19 retrospective cohort studies and 16 randomized controlled studies with a total of 3171 patients. The ERAS group was found to exhibit advantages in the following outcome indicators: postoperative hospital stay (WMD=-2.88, 95% CI: -3.71 to -2.05, p<0.001), total hospital stay (WMD=-3.35, 95% CI: -3.73 to -2.97, p<0.001), time to first postoperative bed activity (SMD=-3.80, 95% CI: -4.61 to -2.98, p < 0.001), time to first postoperative anal exhaust (SMD=-1.55, 95% CI: -1.92 to -1.18, p < 0.001), time to first postoperative bowel movement (SMD=-1.52, 95% CI: -2.08 to -0.96, p < 0.001), time to first postoperative food intake (SMD=-3.65, 95% CI: -4.59 to -2.71, p<0.001), time to catheter removal (SMD=-3.69, 95% CI: -4.61 to -2.77, p<0.001), time to drainage tube removal (SMD=-2.77, 95% CI: -3.41 to -2.13, p<0.001), total postoperative complication incidence (RR=0.41, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.49, p<0.001), postoperative hemorrhage incidence (RR=0.41, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.66, p<0.001), postoperative urinary leakage incidence (RR=0.27, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.65, p=0.004), deep vein thrombosis incidence (RR=0.14, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.36, p<0.001), and hospitalization costs (WMD=-0.82, 95% CI: -1.20 to -0.43, p<0.001).
CONCLUSION
ERAS is safe and effective in partial nephrectomy of renal tumors. In addition, ERAS can improve the turnover rate of hospital beds, reduce medical costs and improve the utilization rate of medical resources.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022351038.
PubMed: 36845687
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1049294 -
Minerva Urology and Nephrology Apr 2023Partial nephrectomy, thermal ablation and active surveillance are acceptable options for T1 stage renal tumor management. Currently, we lack sufficient information to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Partial nephrectomy, thermal ablation and active surveillance are acceptable options for T1 stage renal tumor management. Currently, we lack sufficient information to make an accurate comparison of thermal ablation with active surveillance. The study objectives were to compare thermal ablation with active surveillance indirectly using partial nephrectomy as a reference.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We performed a systematic literature search using two databases (Scopus and Medline). The detailed search strategy is available at Prospero, CRD42021290055. The primary outcome was cancer-specific survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival and metastasis-free survival.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
The final sample comprised 33 articles. They included the ones that compare: partial nephrectomy to ablation (29 studies), partial nephrectomy to active surveillance (2 studies), and partial nephrectomy vs. active surveillance vs. ablation (2 articles). We assessed 3-year and 5-year cancer-specific survival, and 3-, 5- and 7-year overall survival. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) treatment benefit ranking was: cancer-specific survival - 48.6% for thermal ablation and 1.6% for active surveillance (5-year follow-up); overall survival - 52% for thermal ablation and 0.6% for active surveillance (7-year follow-up). The results demonstrated a significantly higher 3-year cancer-specific survival (RR 1.55, P=0.02) and 3- and 7-year follow-up overall survival (RR 1.85, P=0.03) in thermal ablation compared to active surveillance. At 5-year follow-up, cancer-specific survival and overall survival were in favor of thermal ablation while no statistically significant difference was reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Thermal ablation offers a significantly higher cancer-specific survival and overall survival at mid-term follow-up in the management of T1 renal tumors compared to active surveillance. However, it is necessary to conduct further prospective randomized studies to validate the data.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Watchful Waiting; Kidney Neoplasms; Nephrectomy
PubMed: 36799495
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6051.22.05036-4 -
Journal of Endourology May 2023We aimed to make a general comparison between the safety and feasibility of a novel robotic platform, da Vinci single-port (SP) system with conventional robotic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We aimed to make a general comparison between the safety and feasibility of a novel robotic platform, da Vinci single-port (SP) system with conventional robotic multiport (MP) and laparoendoscopic single-site systems (da Vinci Xi or Si) in three upper urinary tract procedures including robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN), robot-assisted pyeloplasty (RAP), and robot-assisted adrenalectomy (RA). After systematical searching of the literature up to October 2022 in PubMed, Web of Science™, and the Cochrane Library and Scopus databases, we extracted and processed the data in eligible literature for operative time, warm ischemia time (WIT), morphine milligram equivalent (MME), postoperative complications, and positive surgical margins (PSMs). A total of 752 patients who underwent robotic surgery for SP or MP from 11 articles were included in this meta-analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in operative time for either RAPN (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.30 to 0.03) or RA (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -1.08 to 0.06). However, for RAP, SP can save operation time (SMD -0.73, 95% CI -1.24 to -0.22). The introduction of SP did not increase complications to any degree, including total complication (risk ratio [RR] 0.89, 95% CI 0.52-1.53), minor complication (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.13-1.36), and major complication (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.34-2.09), nor the incidence of PSMs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.54-1.99). It is worth noting that although the SP system increased WIT (SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.26-0.62), it had the benefit of reducing intraoperative pain for RAPN with regard of MME (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.09). In terms of postoperative pain, SP robotic surgery is beneficial for RAPN but will make WIT prolonged. RAP is probably the most suitable upper urinary tract procedure for which SP is an option, which helps to shorten the surgery time and achieve a minimally invasive wound at the same time. Our study has been registered in PROSPERO (Registration No.: CRD42022350317).
Topics: Humans; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Urologic Surgical Procedures; Urinary Tract; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 36799070
DOI: 10.1089/end.2022.0736 -
Minerva Urology and Nephrology Apr 2023The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of routine drainage insertion vs. no drainage in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of routine drainage insertion vs. no drainage in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN), and robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A literature search was conducted through April 2022 using PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to identify eligible studies.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Eleven studies comprising 8447 RARPs and 1890 RAPNs met our inclusion criteria. Our search strategy did not identify any studies within the RARC framework. In RARP, patients without postoperative drainage had lower rate of postoperative ileus (OR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.74; P<0.001) and similar low-grade (Clavien 1-2, P=0.41) and high-grade (Clavien ≥3; P=0.85) complications, urinary leakage (P=0.07), pelvic hematoma (P=0.35), symptomatic lymphocele (P=0.13), fever (P=0.25), incisional hernia (P=0.31), reintervention (P=0.57), length of hospital stay (P=0.22), and readmission (P=0.74) compared with routinely drained patients. In RAPN, patients without postoperative drainage had shorter length of hospital stay (mean difference: -0.84 days, 95% CI: -1.06 to -0.63; P<0.001) and similar low-grade (P=0.94) and high-grade (P=0.31) complications, urinary leakage (P=0.49), hemorrhage (P=0.39), reintervention (P=0.69), and readmission (P=0.20) compared with routinely drained patients.
CONCLUSIONS
In our study, patients without drainage had similar perioperative course to patients with prophylactic drain insertion after RARP and RAPN. Omission of drain insertion was associated with a lower rate of postoperative ileus for RARP and a shorter hospital stay for RAPN. In the era of robotic surgery, routine drain placement is no longer indicated in unselected patients.
Topics: Male; Humans; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Laparoscopy; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Cystectomy; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 36722161
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6051.22.05160-6 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2022Partial nephrectomy (PN) is one of the most preferred nephron-sparing treatments for clinical T1 (cT1) renal cancer, while radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is usually used...
BACKGROUND
Partial nephrectomy (PN) is one of the most preferred nephron-sparing treatments for clinical T1 (cT1) renal cancer, while radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is usually used for patients who are poor surgical candidates. The long-term oncologic outcome of RFA vs. PN for cT1 renal cancer remains undetermined. This meta-analysis aims to compare the treatment efficacy and safety of RFA and PN for patients with cT1 renal cancer with long-term follow-up of at least 5 years.
METHOD
This meta-analysis was performed following the PRISMA reporting guidelines. Literature studies that had data on the comparison of the efficacy or safety of RFA vs. PN in treating cT1 renal cancer were searched in databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from 1 January2000 to 1 May 2022. Only long-term studies with a median or mean follow-up of at least 5 years were included. The following measures of effect were pooled: odds ratio (OR) for recurrence and major complications; hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). Additional analyses, including sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and publication bias analysis, were also performed.
RESULTS
A total of seven studies with 1,635 patients were finally included. The treatment efficacy of RFA was not different with PN in terms of cancer recurrence (OR = 1.22, 95% CI, 0.45-3.28), PFS (HR = 1.26, 95% CI, 0.75-2.11), and CSS (HR = 1.27, 95% CI, 0.41-3.95) as well as major complications (OR = 1.31, 95% CI, 0.55-3.14) ( > 0.05 for all). RFA was a potential significant risk factor for OS (HR = 1.76, 95% CI, 1.32-2.34, < 0.001). No significant heterogeneity and publication bias were observed.
CONCLUSION
This is the first meta-analysis that focuses on the long-term oncological outcomes of cT1 renal cancer, and the results suggest that RFA has comparable therapeutic efficacy with PN. RFA is a nephron-sparing technique with favorable oncologic efficacy and safety and a good treatment alternative for cT1 renal cancer.
PubMed: 36684152
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.1012897 -
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 -
European Urology Oncology Apr 2023A variety of models predicting postoperative renal function following surgery for nonmetastatic renal tumors have been reported, but their validity and clinical... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
A variety of models predicting postoperative renal function following surgery for nonmetastatic renal tumors have been reported, but their validity and clinical usefulness have not been formally assessed.
OBJECTIVE
To summarize prediction models available for estimation of mid- to long-term (>3 mo) postoperative renal function after partial nephrectomy (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) for nonmetastatic renal masses that include only preoperative or modifiable intraoperative variables.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic review of the English-language literature was conducted using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases from January 2000 to March 2022 according to the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022303492). Risk of bias was assessed according to the Prediction Model Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Overall, 21 prediction models from 18 studies were included (nine for PN only; eight for RN only; four for PN or RN). Most studies relied on retrospective patient cohorts and had a high risk of bias and high concern regarding the overall applicability of the proposed model. Patient-, kidney-, surgery-, tumor-, and provider-related factors were included among the predictors in 95%, 86%, 100%, 61%, and 0% of the models, respectively. All but one model included both patient age and preoperative renal function, while only a few took into account patient gender, race, comorbidities, tumor size/complexity, and surgical approach. There was significant heterogeneity in both the model building strategy and the performance metrics reported. Five studies reported external validation of six models, while three assessed their clinical usefulness using decision curve analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Several models are available for predicting postoperative renal function after kidney cancer surgery. Most of these are not ready for routine clinical practice, while a few have been externally validated and might be of value for patients and clinicians.
PATIENT SUMMARY
We reviewed the tools available for predicting kidney function after partial or total surgical removal of a kidney for nonmetastatic cancer. Most of the models include patient and kidney characteristics such as age, comorbidities, and preoperative kidney function, and a few also include tumor characteristics and intraoperative variables. Some models have been validated by additional research groups and appear promising for improving counseling for patients with nonmetastatic cancer who are candidates for surgery.
Topics: Humans; Retrospective Studies; Kidney; Kidney Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Nephrectomy
PubMed: 36631353
DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2022.11.007 -
Urologic Oncology Mar 2023To determine the patient characteristics and role of nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) in the treatment of children and young adults with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine the patient characteristics and role of nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) in the treatment of children and young adults with renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
METHODS
A systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE, and Scopus databases was conducted in December 2021 according to Cochrane collaboration recommendations. All included manuscripts were assessed for patient characteristics and all reported outcomes for patients undergoing partial nephrectomy (PN), and radical nephrectomy (RN) outcomes were abstracted as a comparison group. Primary outcomes included surgical outcomes, overall survival, kidney outcomes. Outcomes were pooled with weighted mean and ranges. Meta-analysis was not performed given study quality. This systematic review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022300261).
RESULTS
We found a total of 16 studies describing 119 and 559 unique patients undergoing PN and RN, respectively, with a mean age of 12.2 years and mean follow-up of 59.1 months. The mean tumor size for patients undergoing PN was 3.5 cm. Of the 113 patients undergoing PN with available data, 109 were alive at follow-up (98%). No studies reported long-term kidney outcomes, and four studies reported surgical outcomes. All studies had at least moderate risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of NSS in children and young adults with RCC is feasible in selected patients. However, small sample sizes, confounding, and low study quality limit clinical recommendation on NSS in this population. There are significant opportunities for future research on the use of NSS in RCC, especially with systematic reporting of oncological, kidney, and surgical outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Child; Young Adult; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Kidney Neoplasms; Nephrectomy; Kidney; Nephrons; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36428167
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.09.015