The associations of RENAL, PADUA and C-index nephrometry scores with perioperative outcomes and postoperative renal function in minimally invasive partial nephrectomy

Predicting Strict Trifecta Outcomes after Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: Comparison of RENAL, PADUA, and C-Index Scores

Nephrometry scores are designed to characterize tumors and stratify the surgical complexity. It remains unclear as to which nephrometry score can accurately predict the surgical outcomes. We aimed to assess the utility of radius, exophytic/endophytic, nearness, anterior/posterior, location (RENAL), preoperative aspects and dimensions used for anatomic classifications (PADUA), and centrality index (C-index) nephrometry scores for predicting the strict Trifecta achievement from a single institution series robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). We retrospectively identified the prospectively maintained robotic surgery database records of 91 patients who underwent RAPN between June 2015 and September 2020 in Antalya Training and Research Hospital. The main outcome of the study was the achievement of strict Trifecta (negative surgical margin, no major urologic complications, warm ischemia time ≤25 min, and ≥85% preservation of estimated glomerular filtration rate). A multivariable analysis was performed to identify the factors of strict Trifecta success. The mean patient age was 55.82 ± 13.37 years with a median clinical tumor size of 3.5 cm (IQR 2.5–4.9). The median RENAL, PADUA, and C-index score were 7(IQR 6–8), 8(IQR 7–10), and 2.01(IQR 1.64–2.72), respectively. A strict Trifecta could be achieved in 54 patients (59.3%). Clinical tumor size (P = 0.011), RENAL risk groups (low:reference; intermediate; P = 0.040; high; P = 0.009), PADUA risk groups (low:reference; intermediate; P = 0.044; high; P = 0.001) and C-index risk groups (low:reference; high; P = 0.015) were the independent predictors of strict Trifecta attainment in the multivariate analysis. None of the nephrometry scores were a superior predictor compared to other nephrometry scores in comparative analysis. RENAL, PADUA, and C-index scores were all independent predictors of a strict Trifecta achievement. Our comprehensive comparison of the three scores identified that none of the nephrometry scores proved to be inferior to others nephrometry scores.

Parallel comparison of R.E.N.A.L., PADUA, and C-index scoring systems in predicting outcomes after partial nephrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To parallelly compare the applicability of the radius, exophytic/endophytic, nearness, anterior/posterior, location nephrometry score (R.E.N.A.L.), the Preoperative Aspects and Dimensions Used for an Anatomical (PADUA), and the centrality index (C‐index) scoring systems in predicting clinical outcomes after partial nephrectomy (PN).

Methods

We searched EMBASE, PubMed, Ovid, and Web of Science to perform a meta‐analysis examining the correlation coefficients between three nephrometry scores (NSs) and warm ischemia time (WIT), estimated blood loss (EBL), operation time (OT), length of stay (LOS), and absolute change in eGFR (ACE) up to 25 January 2021.

Results

In total, 13 studies including 1496 patients met the criteria for further analysis. Overall, all scoring systems had statistically significant correlations with the WIT, EBL, OT, ACE and LOS and ACE, except for the correlation between PADUA and LOS (r = 0.16 [−0.00, 0.31], p > 0.05). The C‐index had the strongest correlation with WIT (r = −0.35 [−0.43, −0.26], p < 0.05) and ACE (r = −0.29 [−0.48, −0.10], p < 0.05). Weak correlations were observed between OT as well as EBL and each scoring system. Publication bias was observed in PADUA score predicting ACE (p = 0.04) and high heterogeneity was found in some of our results.

Conclusion

Until now, this is the first meta‐analysis that parallelly compares these three scoring systems in predicting outcomes after PN. We found that all NSs showed a statistically significant correlation with WIT, EBL, OT, and ACE. Moreover, the C‐index scoring system is the best predictor of WIT and ACE. Due to the existence of publication bias and high heterogeneity, more well‐designed and large‐scale studies are warranted for validation.

To our knowledge, this is the first meta‐analysis that parallelly compares these three scoring systems in predicting outcomes after PN. Overall, three scoring systems were significantly correlated with WIT, EBL, OT and ACE. Moreover, the C‐index scoring system outperformed R.E.N.A.L. and PADUA scoring systems in WIT and ACE.