Garnon J, Tricard T, Cazzato RL, Cathelineau X, Gangi A, Lang H. [Percutaneous renal ablation: Pre-, per-, post-interventional evaluation modalities and adapted management].
Prog Urol 2017;
27:971-993. [PMID:
28942001 DOI:
10.1016/j.purol.2017.08.007]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2017] [Revised: 08/20/2017] [Accepted: 08/23/2017] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES
Ablative treatment (AT) rise is foreseen, validation of steps to insure good proceedings is needed. By looking over the process of the patient, this study evaluates the requirements and choices needed in every step of the management.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE®, Embase®, using (MeSH) words and we looked for all the studies. Investigators graded the strength of evidence in terms of methodology, language and relevance.
RESULTS
Explanations of AT proposal rather than partial nephrectomy or surveillance have to be discussed in a consultation shared by urologist and interventional radiologist. Per-procedure choices depend on predictable ballistic difficulties. High volume, proximity of the hilum or of a risky organ are in favor of general anesthesia, cryotherapy and computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MRI). Percutaneous approach should be privileged, as it seems as effective as the laparoscopic approach. Early and delayed complications have to be treated both by urologist and radiologist. Surveillance by CT/MRI insure of the lack of contrast-enhanced in the treated area. Patients and tumors criteria, in case of incomplete treatment or recurrence, are the key of the appropriate treatment: surgery, second session of AT, surveillance.
CONCLUSION
AT treatments require patient's comprehension, excellent coordination of the partnership between urologist and radiologist and relevant choices during intervention.
Collapse