The Benign Renal Masses that Were Exposed after Nephron-Sparing Surgery: “Postsurgical Fatty Tumor.” Is It Related to the Surgical Technique?
Main Article Content
Keywords
angiomyolipoma, benign renal neoplasm, nephron-sparing surgery, partial nephrectomy, postsurgical fatty tumor, renal cancer
Abstract
After nephron-sparing surgery (NSS), postsurgical fatty tumor could be mistakenly reported as angiomyolipoma during radiologic imaging of some patients. In the present paper, we studied the postsurgical fatty tumor detected after NSS but not covered before in the literature. In addition, we also evaluated whether the postsurgical fatty tumor was related to the surgical technique employed. Patients admitted to the urology department of our university hospital from 2014 to 2019 and operated with open NSS were evaluated retrospectively. We detected those 156 patients were operated with NSS. Nine patients with angiomyolipoma as primary pathology and four patients with surgical border positivity were excluded from the study. The patients were divided into two groups based on the repair of tumor extraction region. In Group 1, fatty tissue was used for repair, and Group 2 is the primary repair group. In all, 143 patients (Group 1 = 79, and Group 2 = 64) were included in the study. No demographic and radiologic differences, such as number of patients, age, gender, positioning of tumor, mass localization, tumor diameter, and RENAL nephrometry scoring system, were detected between the two groups. Postsurgical fatty tumors were detected in 28 patients in Group 1 and in two patients in Group 2 (P < 0.001). In patients with negative surgical margins after partial nephrectomy, lesions that were radiologically detected mimicking as angiomyolipoma were defined as “postsurgical fatty tumor.” This mass containing adipose tissue only neither depicted vascularization and enhancement nor increase in size for at least 1 year. We assumed that these lesions must be followed as benign lesions not requiring additional treatment.
References
2. Xu C, Lin C, Xu Z, Feng S, Zheng Y. Tumor enucleation versus partial nephrectomy for T1 renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol. 2019;9:473. 10.3389/fonc.2019.00473
3. Li W, Cheng Y, Cheng Y, Ren H, Han N. Clinical efficacy of radical nephrectomy versus nephron-sparing surgery on localized renal cell carcinoma. Eur J Med Res. 2014;19(1):58. 10.1186/s40001-014-0058-4; 10.1186/s40001-015-0148-y
4. Badalato GM, Kates M, Wisnivesky JP, Choudhury AR, McKiernan JM. Survival after partial and radical nephrectomy for the treatment of stage T1bN0M0 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the USA: A propensity scoring approach. BJU Int. 2012;109(10):1457–62. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10597.x
5. Janssen M, Linxweiler J, Terwey S, Rugge S, Ohlmann C-H, Becker F, et al. Survival outcomes in patients with large (≥7 cm) clear cell renal cell carcinomas treated with nephron-sparing surgery versus radical nephrectomy: Results of a multicenter cohort with long-term follow-up. PloS One. 2018;13(5). 10.1371/journal.pone.0196427
6. Ljungberg B, Albiges L, Abu-Ghanem Y, Bensalah K, Dabestani S, Fernández-Pello S, et al. European Association of Urology guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: The 2019 update. Eur Urol. 2019;75(5):799–810. 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.011
7. Volpe A, Blute ML, Ficarra V, Gill IS, Kutikov A, Porpiglia F, et al. Renal ischemia and function after partial nephrectomy: A collaborative review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2015;68(1):61–74. 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.025
8. Mir MC, Ercole C, Takagi T, Zhang Z, Velet L, Remer EM, et al. Decline in renal function after partial nephrectomy: Etiology and prevention. J Urol. 2015;193(6):1889–98. 10.1016/j.juro.2015.01.093
9. Satkunasivam R, Tsai S, Syan S, Bernhard J-C, de Castro Abreu AL, Chopra S, et al. Robotic unclamped “minimal-margin” partial nephrectomy: Ongoing refinement of the anatomic zero-ischemia concept. Eur Urol. 2015;68(4):705–12. 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.04.044
10. Ng AM, Shah PH, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: A narrative review and comparison with open and robotic partial nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2017;31(10):976–84. 10.1089/end.2017.0063
11. Avitan O, Gorenberg M, Sabo E, Bahouth Z, Shprits S, Halachmi S, et al. The use of tissue adhesive for tumor bed closure during partial nephrectomy is associated with reduced devascularized functional volume loss. Curr Urol. 2019;13(2):82–6. 10.1159/000499288
12. Flum AS, Hamoui N, Said MA, Yang XJ, Casalino DD, McGuire BB, et al. Update on the diagnosis and management of renal angiomyolipoma. J Urol. 2016;195(4):834–46. 10.1016/j.juro.2015.07.126
13. Vos N, Oyen R. Renal angiomyolipoma: The good, the bad, and the ugly. J Belgian Soc Radiol. 2018;102(1). 10.5334/jbsr.1536
14. Silverman SG, Israel GM, Herts BR, Richie JP. Management of the incidental renal mass. Radiology. 2008;249(1):16–31. 10.1148/radiol.2491070783
15. Ljungberg B, Albiges L, Abu-Ghanem Y, Bensalah K, Dabestani S, Fernández-Pello S, et al. European Association of Urology guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: The 2019 update. Eur Urol. 2019;75(5):799–810. 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.011
16. Donat SM, Diaz M, Bishoff JT, Coleman JA, Dahm P, Derweesh IH, et al. Follow-up for clinically localized renal neoplasms: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2013;190(2):407–16. 10.1016/j.juro.2013.04.121
17. Sun M, Abdollah F, Bianchi M, Trinh Q-D, Jeldres C, Thuret R, et al. Treatment management of small renal masses in the 21st century: A paradigm shift. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(7):2380–7. 10.1245/s10434-012-2247-0
18. Longo N, Minervini A, Antonelli A, Bianchi G, Bocciardi A, Cunico S, et al. Simple enucleation versus standard partial nephrectomy for clinical T1 renal masses: Perioperative outcomes based on a matched-pair comparison of 396 patients (RECORd project). Eur J Sur Oncol (EJSO). 2014;40(6):762–8. 10.1016/j.ejso.2014.01.007
19. Urlesberger H, Rauchenwald K, Henning K. Fibrin adhesives in surgery of the renal parenchyma. Eur Urol. 1979;5:260–1. 10.1159/000473125
20. Levinson AK, Swanson DA, Greskovich III FJ, Stephenson RA, Lichtiger B. Fibrin glue for partial nephrectomy. Urology. 1991;38(4):314–6. 10.1016/0090-4295(91)80142-T
21. Ito TE, Martin AL, Henderson EF, Gaskins JT, Vaughn VM, Biscette SM, et al. Systematic review of topical hemostatic agent use in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg (JSLS). 2018;22(4). 10.4293/JSLS.2018.00070
22. Gill IS, Ramani AP, Spaliviero M, Xu M, Finelli A, Kaouk JH, et al. Improved hemostasis during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy using gelatin matrix thrombin sealant. Urology. 2005;65(3):463–6. 10.1016/j.urology.2004.10.030
23. Billings Jr E, May Jr JW. Historical review and present status of free fat graft autotransplantation in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Plas Reconstr Surg. 1989;83(2):368–81. 10.1097/00006534-198902000-00033
24. Özkan L, Saribacak A, Taneri C, Ozkurkcugil C, Cevik I, Dillioglugil O. A new technique—“lipocorticoplasty”—for the closure of partial nephrectomy defects and its comparison with the standard technique. Int Urol Nephrol. 2011;43(3):737–42. 10.1007/s11255-011-9899-8
25. Demyashkin G, Zaborskii I. New approach to diagnosis, immunophenotypic verification and prognostic prediction for renal angiomyolipoma. Urologiia (Moscow, Russia). 2018(1):35–41. 10.18565/urology.2018.1.35-41
26. Fittschen A, Wendlik I, Oeztuerk S, Kratzer W, Akinli AS, Haenle MM, et al. Prevalence of sporadic renal angiomyolipoma: A retrospective analysis of 61,389 in-and out-patients. Abdom Imaging. 2014;39(5):1009–13. 10.1007/s00261-014-0129-6
27. Lane BR, Aydin H, Danforth TL, Zhou M, Remer EM, Novick AC, et al. Clinical correlates of renal angiomyolipoma subtypes in 209 patients: Classic, fat poor, tuberous sclerosis associated and epithelioid. J Urol. 2008;180(3):836–43. 10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.041
28. Song S, Park BK, Park JJ. New radiologic classification of renal angiomyolipomas. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(10):1835–42. 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.08.012
29. Bhatt JR, Richard PO, Kim NS, Finelli A, Manickavachagam K, Legere L, et al. Natural history of renal angiomyolipoma (AML): Most patients with large AMLs > 4 cm can be offered active surveillance as an initial management strategy. Eur Urol. 2016;70(1):85–90. 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.01.048
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.