-
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 -
Journal of Robotic Surgery Jun 2023As robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) expands to smaller centres, platforms are shared between specialities. Healthcare providers must consider case volume and mix required...
As robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) expands to smaller centres, platforms are shared between specialities. Healthcare providers must consider case volume and mix required to maintain quality and cost-effectiveness. This can be informed, in-part, by the volume-outcome relationship. We perform a systematic review to describe the volume-outcome relationship in intra-abdominal robotic-assisted surgery to report on suggested minimum volumes standards. A literature search of Medline, NICE Evidence Search, Health Technology Assessment Database and Cochrane Library using the terms: "robot*", "surgery", "volume" and "outcome" was performed. The included procedures were gynecological: hysterectomy, urological: partial and radical nephrectomy, cystectomy, prostatectomy, and general surgical: colectomy, esophagectomy. Hospital and surgeon volume measures and all reported outcomes were analysed. 41 studies, including 983,149 procedures, met the inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and the retrieved data was synthesised in a narrative review. Significant volume-outcome relationships were described in relation to key outcome measures, including operative time, complications, positive margins, lymph node yield and cost. Annual surgeon and hospital volume thresholds were described. We concluded that in centres with an annual volume of fewer than 10 cases of a given procedure, having multiple surgeons performing these procedures led to worse outcomes and, therefore, opportunities should be sought to perform other complimentary robotic procedures or undertake joint cases.
Topics: Male; Humans; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Robotics; Prostatectomy; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Hospitals
PubMed: 36315379
DOI: 10.1007/s11701-022-01461-2 -
In Vivo (Athens, Greece) 2022Trifecta represents a composite outcome reflecting the quality level of treatment in nephron sparing surgery. However, there is substantial heterogeneity concerning the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/AIM
Trifecta represents a composite outcome reflecting the quality level of treatment in nephron sparing surgery. However, there is substantial heterogeneity concerning the criteria required for its fulfilment. The present study aimed to highlight the potential of a unified view for the different definitions of trifecta when comparing robotic and open approaches in partial nephrectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was carried out for all relevant comparative studies published until April 2022. Trifecta definitions were clustered according to two criteria for postoperative renal function reduction. The first set as an upper limit the 10% decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate, while the second set as an upper limit 25 min of ischemia. To mathematically investigate the point of intersection between the above two groups, a suitable model of volume conservation equations was formulated.
RESULTS
A total of 11 studies were investigated for their methodological features and grouped accordingly. The ischemic zone volume surrounding the tumor resection site emerged as the central parameter connecting the two main definitions. Specifically, for patients with solitary renal masses, a given change in the value of one parameter resulted in a fixed change in the value of the other.
CONCLUSION
The two main definitions of the "trifecta outcome" extracted from the international literature represent the two sides of the same coin. Thus, trifecta achievement rates could be utilized by future studies as aggregate data to yield a quantitative estimate of the comparative effect between robotic and open approaches in partial nephrectomy procedures.
Topics: Humans; Models, Theoretical; Nephrectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36309375
DOI: 10.21873/invivo.12992 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Oct 2022Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is used more and more in present days as a therapy option for surgical treatment of cT1 renal masses. Current guidelines... (Review)
Review
Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is used more and more in present days as a therapy option for surgical treatment of cT1 renal masses. Current guidelines equally recommend open (OPN), laparoscopic (LPN), or robotic partial nephrectomy (PN). The aim of this review was to analyze the most representative RAPN series in terms of reported oncological outcomes. (2) Methods: A systematic search of Webofscience, PUBMED, Clinicaltrials.gov was performed on 1 August 2022. Studies were considered eligible if they: included patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) stage T1, were prospective, used randomized clinical trials (RCT) or retrospective studies, had patients undergo RAPN with a minimum follow-up of 48 months. (3) Results: Reported positive surgical margin rates were from 0 to 10.5%. Local recurrence occurred in up to 3.6% of patients. Distant metastases were reported in up to 6.4% of patients. 5-year cancer free survival (CFS) estimates rates ranged from 86.4% to 98.4%. 5-year cancer specific survival (CSS) estimates rates ranged from 90.1% to 100%, and 5-year overall survival (OS) estimates rated ranged from 82.6% to 97.9%. (4) Conclusions: Data coming from retrospective and prospective series shows very good oncologic outcomes after RAPN. Up to now, 10-year survival outcomes were not reported. Taken together, RAPN deliver similar oncologic performance to OPN and LPN.
PubMed: 36294486
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11206165 -
BioMed Research International 2022To compare the effect of sutureless versus standard suture (double-layer suture) during renorrhaphy in laparoscopic or robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To compare the effect of sutureless versus standard suture (double-layer suture) during renorrhaphy in laparoscopic or robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy on perioperative and renal function outcomes.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and other sources were searched for randomized controlled trials or retrospective studies comparing sutureless partial nephrectomy versus standard suture partial nephrectomy. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed by two reviewers independently.
RESULTS
Five retrospective studies were included with a total of 634 patients. The results showed that there was a significant difference in the decline of estimated glomerular filtration rate ( = 98.5%; WMD, -4.19 ml/min; 95% CI, -7.64 to -0.73; < 0.001) and no significant difference in postoperative complications ( = 0; RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.61 to 2.81; = 0.623). A significant advantage in terms of operating time ( = 53.9%; WMD, -29.08 min; 95% CI, -33.06 to -25.10; = 0.069) and warm ischemia time ( = 38.5%; WMD, -6.17 min; 95% CI, -6.99 to -5.36; = 0.165) favored sutureless, while there was no significant difference in blood loss ( = 58.1%; WMD, 3.10 ml; 95% CI, -39.18 to 45.38; = 0.049).
CONCLUSION
Sutureless during renorrhaphy is feasible and safe compared with standard suture. Sutureless can shorten the operating time and warm ischemia time without increasing postoperative complications, and thus, it protects renal function.
Topics: Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Laparoscopy; Nephrectomy; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36193318
DOI: 10.1155/2022/5260131 -
Minerva Urology and Nephrology Feb 2023After transplantation, approximately 10% of renal cell carcinomas are detected in graft kidneys. These tumors (gRCC) present surgeons with the difficulty of finding a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
After transplantation, approximately 10% of renal cell carcinomas are detected in graft kidneys. These tumors (gRCC) present surgeons with the difficulty of finding a treatment that guarantees both oncological clearance and maintenance of function. We conducted a systematic review and an individual patient data meta-analysis on the oncology, safety and functional outcomes of the available treatments for gRCC.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic search was performed across MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science including any study reporting perioperative, functional and survival outcomes for patients undergoing graft nephrectomy (GN), partial nephrectomy (PN) or thermal ablation (TA) for gRCC. Quade's ANCOVA, Spearman Rho and Pearson χ, Kaplan-Meier, Log-rank and Standard Cox regression and other tests were used to compare treatments. Studies' quality was evaluated using a modified version of Newcastle Ottawa Scale.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A number of 29 studies (357 patients) were included. No differences between TA and PN were found in terms of safety, functional and oncological outcomes for T1a gRCCs. When applied to pT1b gRCC, PN showed no difference in complications, progression or cancer-specific deaths compared to smaller lesions; PN validity for pT2 gRCCs should be considered unverified due to lack of sufficient evidence. The efficacy and safety of PN or TA for multiple gRCC remain controversial. In case of non-functioning, large (T≥2), complicated or metastatic gRCCs, GN appears to be the most reasonable choice. Quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Studies with large cohorts and longer follow-up are still needed to clarify oncological and functional differences.
CONCLUSIONS
PN and TA might be offered as a nephron-sparing treatment in patients with T1a gRCC. There is no significant difference between these options and GN in terms of oncological outcomes and complications. PN and TA offer similar functional outcomes and graft preservation. PN for T1b gRCC seems feasible and safe, but its validity should be considered unverified.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Kidney Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome; Kidney; Nephrectomy
PubMed: 36094386
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6051.22.04881-9 -
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 -
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 -
Turkish Journal of Urology May 2022Clamping of renal vessels during partial nephrectomy is usually performed to improve the visualization of tumor margins. However, clamping of renal vessels has been...
Clamping of renal vessels during partial nephrectomy is usually performed to improve the visualization of tumor margins. However, clamping of renal vessels has been associated with detrimental effects on renal function after surgery. This study aimed to compare artery only versus artery and vein clamping as regards the surgical and functional outcomes in patients undergoing partial nephrectomy. The literature was searched for English published studies from January 1, 2000 to August 7, 2021. The search included MEDLINE/ PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ProQuest, using the terms {"par- tial nephrectomy"} OR {"nephron-sparing surgery"} AND {"renal artery and vein clamping} AND {"renal artery only clamping}. Nine studies were included. Meta-analysis showed the artery only clamping grouphad a significantly less percentage of change in glomerular filtration rate at last follow-up (standardizedmean difference: -0.42 [95% CI: -0.70, -0.13], P = .004) as well as a rate of postoperative complications(odds ratio: 0.64 [95% CI: 0.41, 0.98], P = .04). However, no significant difference was observed regarding the development of chronic kidney disease. There was no significant difference regarding the warm ischemiatime, blood loss, or positive surgical margin. Artery only clamping has a comparable safety to artery and vein clamping and may produce a renoprotective effect. Due to limitations of the included studies, the conduction of large-size randomized clinical trials with a long duration of follow-up is required before recommending the replacement of artery and vein clamping with artery only clamping during partial nephrectomy.
PubMed: 35634936
DOI: 10.5152/tud.2022.22009 -
Urologic Oncology Jul 2022To assess the differential clinical outcomes of patients treated with partial nephrectomy (PN) vs. those treated with ablation therapy (AT) such as radiofrequency... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To assess the differential clinical outcomes of patients treated with partial nephrectomy (PN) vs. those treated with ablation therapy (AT) such as radiofrequency ablation, cryoablation and microwave ablation for cT1b compared to cT1a renal tumors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Multiple databases were searched for articles published before August 2021. Studies were deemed eligible if they compared clinical outcomes in patients who underwent PN with those who underwent AT for cT1a and/or cT1b renal tumors.
RESULTS
Overall, 27 studies comprising 13,996 patients were eligible for this meta-analysis. In both cT1a and cT1b renal tumors, there was no significant difference in the percent decline of estimated glomerular filtration rates or in the overall/severe complication rates between PN and AT. Compared to AT, PN was associated with a lower risk of local recurrence in both patients with cT1a and cT1b tumors (cT1a: pooled risk ratio [RR]; 0.43, 95% confidence intervals [CI]; 0.28-0.66, cT1b: pooled RR; 0.41, 95%CI; 0.23-0.75). Subgroup analyses regarding the technical approach revealed no statistical difference in local recurrence rates between percutaneous AT and PN in patients with cT1a tumors (pooled RR; 0.61, 95%CI; 0.32-1.15). In cT1b, however, PN was associated with a lower risk of local recurrence (pooled RR; 0.45, 95%CI; 0.23-0.88). There was no difference in distant metastasis or cancer mortality rates between PN and AT in patients with cT1a, or cT1b tumors.
CONCLUSIONS
AT has a substantially relevant disadvantage with regards to local recurrence compared to PN, particularly in cT1b renal tumors. Despite the limitations inherent to the nature of retrospective and unmatched primary cohorts, percutaneous AT could be used as a reasonable alternative treatment for well-selected patients with cT1a renal tumors.
Topics: Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Neoplasm Staging; Nephrectomy; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35562311
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.04.002