A retrospective study of open and endoscopic nephron sparing surgery in the treatment of complex renal tumors

Perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy versus open partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The primary aim of this present study is to undertake a comprehensive comparative analysis of the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes associated with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN) as interventions for the treatment of complex renal tumors, defined as PADUA or RENAL score ≥ 7.

Methods

We systematically carried out an extensive search across four electronic databases, namely PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science. Our objective was to identify pertinent studies published in the English language up to December 2023, and encompassed controlled trials comparing LPN and OPN as interventions for complex renal tumors.

Results

This study encompassed a total of seven comparative trials, involving 934 patients. LPN exhibited a noteworthy reduction in the length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference [WMD] -2.06 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.62, -1.50; p < 0.00001), blood loss (WMD -34.05mL, 95% CI -55.61, -12.48; p = 0.002), and overall complications (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19, 0.79; p = 0.009). However, noteworthy distinctions did not arise between LPN and OPN concerning parameters such as warm ischemia time, renal function, and oncological outcomes.

Conclusions

This study reveals that LPN presents several advantages over OPN. These benefits encompass a shortened hospital stay, diminished blood loss, and a reduced incidence of complications. Importantly, LPN achieves these benefits while concurrently upholding comparable renal function and oncological outcomes.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=457716, identifier CRD42023453816.

Outcomes of initial 100 cases of laparoscopic nephrectomy at tertiary care center (PKLI)

Objective

Laparoscopic nephrectomy has been adopted by many centers in the last few decades. However, there are a few inherent challenges while adopting laparoscopic nephrectomy in a new unit. These include a significant learning curve required to adopt this modality. This study aimed to share the initial experience of adopting laparoscopic nephrectomy at our center.

Methods

In total, 101 patients were analyzed in the study. These patients underwent laparoscopic radical or simple nephrectomy (for renal mass and noncancer renal cases respectively) at Department of Urology, Pakistan Kidney and Liver Institute and Research Centre, Lahore from April 2018 till January 2021. Data were entered in the statistical analysis software file. Analysis was attained by utilizing SPSS version 20. Implementation of Mean along with standard deviation values was utilized in the case of the continuous variables. While frequency/percentages represented categorical factors.

Results

The mean age of patients was 42.81±15.49 years and their overall BMI was 26.41±5.30 kg/m2. Out of these, 57 (56.43%) were males and 44(43.56%) were female. Eighteen percent of patients had a previous surgical history on the ipsilateral side. Total operative time was 163.98±58.02 minutes while mean hospital stay reached 3.2±0.87 days. The tumor-free margin was attained in all cases of radical nephrectomy. Based on Clavien-Dindo classification, Grade-1 (n=3; 2.97%), Grade-2 (n=6; 5.94%), Grade-3A (n=1; 0.99%), and Grade-3B (n=1; 0.99%) complications were observed.

Conclusion

In a newly developed urology center, laparoscopic nephrectomy can be a daunting task. Good teamwork among the surgical team members and careful selection of cases can result in satisfactory procedural outcomes.

Perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes of minimally-invasive surgery for highly complex renal tumors (RENAL or PADUA score ≥ 10): an evidence-based analysis

The primary objective of the current study is to undertake a comparative analysis of the effectiveness and safety of minimally-invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN; including laparoscopic and robotic approaches) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN) for the treatment of highly complex renal tumors (defined as PADUA or RENAL score ≥ 10). A comprehensive search was conducted in four electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library) to identify relevant studies published in the English language up to April 2023. The current study employed Review Manager 5.4 and encompassed controlled trials of both MIPN and OPN for the treatment of highly complex renal tumors. This study comprised a total of eight comparative trials involving 1161 patients. MIPN demonstrated a significant reduction in length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference [WMD] - 2.08 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 2.48, - 1.68; p < 0.00001), blood loss (WMD - 39.86 mL, 95% CI - 75.32, - 4.39; p = 0.03), transfusion rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.30, 95% CI 0.13, 0.71; p = 0.006), and overall complications (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31, 0.70; p = 0.0003). However, there were no significant differences between MIPN and OPN in terms of operative time, warm ischemia time, conversion to radical nephrectomy rates, renal functional and oncologic outcomes. This study reveals that MIPN presents several benefits in comparison to OPN, including decreased length of hospital stay, blood loss, transfusion rates, and complications, while still offering renal functional and oncological outcomes that are comparable to those of OPN in patients with highly complex renal tumors.

Comparison between minimally invasive partial nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to conduct a pooled analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) with open partial nephrectomy (OPN) in patients with complex renal tumors (defined as PADUA or RENAL score ≥7).

METHODS

The present study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JS9/A394 . We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases until October 2022. MIPN and OPN-controlled trials for complex renal tumors were included. The primary outcomes were perioperative results, complications, renal function, and oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 2405 patients were included in 13 studies. MIPN outperformed OPN in terms of hospital stay [weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.84 days, 95% CI -2.35 to -1.33; P <0.00001], blood loss (WMD -52.42 ml, 95% CI -71.43 to -33.41; P <0.00001), transfusion rates [odds ratio (OR) 0.34, 95% CI 0.17-0.67; P =0.002], major complications (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40-0.86; P =0.007) and overall complications (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.31-0.59; P <0.0001), while operative time, warm ischemia time, conversion to radical nephrectomy rates, estimated glomerular decline, positive surgical margins, local recurrence, overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and cancer-specific survival were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated that MIPN was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay, less blood loss, and fewer complications in treating complex renal tumors. MIPN may be considered a better treatment for patients with complex tumors when technically feasible.

A Report of 61 Cases of Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Nephron-Sparing Surgery and Factors Affecting Postoperative Renal Function

Objective

To explore the situation of 61 patients with renal tumors who underwent retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery (RLNSS) and the factors affecting postoperative renal function.

Methods

A total of 61 patients with renal tumors who underwent RLNSS in our hospital from January 2018 to January 2021 were included in this study. All patients were treated with RLNSS. The clinical data of patients were recorded. Before operation and 3 months after operation, the change value of glomerular filtration rate (ΔGFR) was measured by the Gates method. Multivariate linear regression was used to analyze the related factors affecting postoperative renal function.

Results

All 61 patients successfully completed the operation. The mean operative time was 60–150 min‚ average (98.75 ± 14.38) min. The estimated intraoperative blood loss was 20–310 ml‚ average (107.93 ± 68.55) ml. Intraoperative warm ischemia time (WIT) was 0–39 min, with an average of (21.16 ± 6.47) min. All patients' pathological margins were negative after operation. In all patients, there were 5 postoperative complications, including 2 cases of renal wound bleeding (3.28%), 1 case of hematuria (1.64%), 1 case of urinary fistula (1.64%), and 1 case of subcutaneous emphysema (1.64%). There were significant differences in tumor diameter, preoperative GFR, operation time and WIT (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that tumor diameter, preoperative GFR, and WIT were all factors affecting the postoperative renal function of patients with RLNSS (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

RLNSS has a good curative effect on patients with renal tumor, and tumor diameter, preoperative GFR, and WIT were all factors affecting the postoperative renal function of patients with RLNSS.