Partial Nephrectomy A Comparison between Different Modalities A tertiary care center experience

Main Article Content

Ahmed Al Asker
Abdulmalik Addar https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6969-7158
Mohammed Alghamdi
Saud Alawad
Mohammed Alharbi
Saeed Bin Hamri
Nasser Albqami
Abdullah Alkhayal
Khaled Alrabeeah

Keywords

RCC, Partial nephrectomy, Robotic surgery, MIS

Abstract

Kidney cancer, with 4% of all malignancies, is one of the most common malignancies occurring among in adults. In Saudi Arabia, kidney cancer comprises 2.3% of all cancers, and its incidence has increased by 33%. Partial nephrectomy (PN) is considered as the gold standard for T1 renal masses.
In this retrospective study, we did a chart review for all patients who underwent PNs between April 2013 and February 2019. Data comprised pre-sentation, tumor size, type of procedure (open vs. laparoscopic vs. robotic), and intra- and post-operative complications. Chi-square, ANOVA, and cross-tabulation were done using SPSS software. P > 0.05 was considered significant. Approval was obtained from the institutional review board of King Abdullah International Medical Research Center.
In all, 69 patients were identified: 26 (37.7%) males and 43 (62.3%) females, with mean age = 54.53 ± 13.21 years; mean body mass index = 32.36 ± 7.03, and mean tumor size = 3.7 ± 1.72 cm. In terms of presentation, most patients (50, 72.4%) presented incidentally as opposed to symptomatic presentation. Of these patients, 18 (26.1%) underwent open partial nephrectomy (OPN), 29 (42%) laparoscopic partial nephrec-tomy (LPN), and 22 (31.9%) robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). On comparing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) PN with OPN, we found that OPN had more blood loss and a longer hospital stay but a shorter operating room (OR) time.
Results of PN irrespective of the procedure type, whether it was OPN, LPN, or RPN, were similar if performed by experienced surgeons. However, open procedures involved a higher blood loss, more operative time, and longer hospital stay when compared with minimally invasive techniques.

Abstract 273 | PDF Downloads 92 XML Downloads 94 HTML Downloads 57

References

1. Antonelli A, Cozzoli A, Nicolai M, et al. Nephron-Sparing Surgery versus Radical Nephrectomy in the Treatment of Intracapsular Renal Cell Carcinoma up to 7 cm. Eur Urol. Published online 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.11.007
2. Kara Ö, Maurice MJ, Mouracade P, et al. When Partial Nephrectomy is Unsuccessful: Understanding the Reasons for Conversion from Robotic Partial to Radical Nephrectomy at a Tertiary Referral Center. J Urol. Published online 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.01.019
3. Ljungberg B, Cowan NC, Hanbury DC, et al. EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: The 2010 update. Eur Urol. Published online 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.06.032
4. Campbell SC, Novick AC, Belldegrun A, et al. Guideline for Management of the Clinical T1 Renal Mass. J Urol. Published online 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.07.004
5. MacLennan S, Imamura M, Lapitan MC, et al. Systematic review of perioperative and quality-of-life outcomes following surgical management of localised renal cancer. Eur Urol. Published online 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.07.028
6. Ghani KR, Sukumar S, Sammon JD, Rogers CG, Trinh QD, Menon M. Practice patterns and outcomes of open and min-imally invasive partial nephrectomy since the introduction of robotic partial nephrectomy: Results from the nationwide inpatient sample. J Urol. Published online 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.10.099
7. Choi JE, You JH, Kim DK, Rha KH, Lee SH. Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. Published online 2015. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.028
8. Van Poppel H, Bamelis B, Oyen R, Baert L. Partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma can achieve long-term tumor control. J Urol. Published online 1998. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)62751-4
9. Patard JJ, Pantuck AJ, Crepel M, et al. Morbidity and Clinical Outcome of Nephron-Sparing Surgery in Relation to Tumour Size and Indication{A figure is presented}. Eur Urol. Published online 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.01.039
10. Hafez KS, Novick AC, Campbell SC. Patterns of tumor recurrence and guidelines for followup after nephron sparing surgery for sporadic renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. Published online 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)64675-5
11. Borghesi M, Brunocilla E, Schiavina R, Martorana G. Positive surgical margins after nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma: Incidence, clinical impact, and management. Clin Genitourin Cancer. Published online 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2012.09.010
12. Schiavina R, Serni S, Mari A, et al. A prospective, multicenter evaluation of predictive factors for positive surgical margins after nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma: The record1 italian project. Clin Genitourin Cancer. Published online 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2014.08.008
13. Marszalek M, Carini M, Chlosta P, et al. Positive surgical margins after nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol. Published online 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.11.028
14. Yossepowitch O, Thompson RH, Leibovich BC, et al. Positive Surgical Margins at Partial Nephrectomy: Predictors and Oncological Outcomes. J Urol. Published online 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.100
15. Allaf ME, Bhayani SB, Rogers C, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: Evaluation of long-term oncological outcome. J Urol. Published online 2004. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000134292.36152.fa
16. An WS, Kim ES, Kim HJ, et al. Resistive index as a predictor of acute kidney injury caused by an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker in chronic kidney disease patients. Kidney Res Clin Pract. Published online 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.krcp.2013.09.002
17. Leow JJ, Heah NH, Chang SL, Chong YL, Png KS. Outcomes of Robotic versus Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: an Updated Meta-Analysis of 4,919 Patients. J Urol. Published online 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.011
18. Tanaka K, Teishima J, Takenaka A, et al. Prospective study of robotic partial nephrectomy for renal cancer in Japan: Comparison with a historical control undergoing laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Int J Urol. Published online 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.13544
19. Rod X, Peyronnet B, Seisen T, et al. Impact of ischaemia time on renal function after partial nephrectomy: a systematic review. BJU Int. Published online 2016. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13580
20. Lucas SM, Mellon MJ, Erntsberger L, Sundaram CP. A comparison of robotic, laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg. Published online 2012. https://doi.org/10.4293/108680812X13462882737177
21. Kutikov A, Uzzo RG. The R.E.N.A.L. Nephrometry Score: A Comprehensive Standardized System for Quantitating Renal Tumor Size, Location and Depth. J Urol. Published online 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.035
22. Zargar H, Allaf ME, Bhayani S, et al. Trifecta and optimal perioperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in surgical treatment of small renal masses: A multi-institutional study. BJU Int. Published online 2015. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12933
23. Dagenais J, Bertolo R, Garisto J, et al. Variability in Partial Nephrectomy Outcomes: Does Your Surgeon Matter? Eur Urol. Published online 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. eururo.2018.10.046
24. Castellucci R, Primiceri G, Castellan P, et al. Trifecta and pentafecta rates after robotic assisted partial nephrectomy: Comparative study of patients with renal masses <4 and ≥4 cm. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. Published online 2018. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2017.0657