Modified laparoscopic simple enucleation with single-layer suture technique versus standard laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for treating localized renal cell carcinoma
Tóm tắt
To compare modified laparoscopic simple enucleation (MLSE) and standard laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (SLPN) for treating localized renal cell carcinoma in our large institutional experience.
We evaluated 385 consecutive patients who underwent MLSE or SLPN for renal tumors in our institution from January 2013 to December 2015 in terms of perioperative pathological and oncologic outcome variables. During MLSE, the single-layer suture technique was performed for renal reconstruction. In total, 280 patients underwent MLSE and 105 underwent SLPN. Mean operative time was 182.1 and 192.8 min, respectively (p = 0.078). Warm ischemic time was significantly lower in the MLSE than SLPN group (23.2 vs 25.4 min; p = 0.004). The estimated blood loss was similar (p = 0.537). Tumor bed suturing was performed in 9.3 and 82.9% of MLSE and SLPN cases (p = 0.000). No hilar clamping was needed for 29 MLSE patients (10.4%) and 4 SLPN patients (3.8%) (p = 0.041). Grade III complications were reported in 5 (1.8%) MLSE patients and 7 (6.6%) SLPN patients (p = 0.034). The incidence of positive surgical margins was comparable between the MLSE and SLPN groups (1.8 and 5.7%, p = 0.086). After a median follow-up of 18 months, recurrence did not differ between the 2 groups: 9 (3.2%) MLSE patients and 4 (3.8%) SLPN patients (p = 1.000). MLSE may confer shorter warm ischemic time, almost no need for tumor bed suturing and less grade III complications than SLPN, with similar oncologic outcomes. MLSE may be safe and acceptable for patients undergoing partial nephrectomy.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Canfield S et al (2015) EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2014 update. Eur Urol 67(5):913–924
Bhatt JR, Finelli A (2014) Landmarks in the diagnosis and treatment of renal cell carcinoma. Nat Rev Urol 11(9):517–525
Ljungberg B, Hanbury DC, Kuczyk MA et al (2007) Renal cell carcinoma guideline. Eur Urol 51(6):1502–1510
Antonelli A, Cozzoli A, Nicolai M et al (2008) Nephron-sparing surgery versus radical nephrectomy in the treatment of intracapsular renal cell carcinoma up to 7 cm. Eur Urol 53(4):803–809
Li QL, Guan HW, Zhang QP et al (2003) Optimal margin in nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma 4 cm or less. Eur Urol 44(4):448–451
Puppo P, Introini C, Calvi P et al (2004) Long term results of excision of small renal cancer surrounded by a minimal layer of grossly normal parenchyma: review of 94 cases. Eur Urol 46(4):477–481
Castilla EA, Liou LS, Abrahams NA et al (2002) Prognostic importance of resection margin width after nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma. Urology 60(6):993–997
Lane BR, Campbell SC, Gill IS (2013) 10-year oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy. J Urol 190(1):44–49
Minervini A, Ficarra V, Rocco F et al (2011) Simple enucleation is equivalent to traditional partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: results of a nonrandomized, retrospective, comparative study. J Urol 185(5):1604–1610
Longo N, Minervini A, Antonelli A et al (2014) 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 Surg Oncol 40(6):762–768
Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC et al (1982) Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 5(6):649–655
Patard JJ, Leray E, Cindolo L et al (2004) Multi-institutional validation of a symptom based classification for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 172(3):858–862
Ficarra V, Novara G, Secco S et al (2009) Preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) classification of renal tumours in patients who are candidates for nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol 56(5):786–793
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213
Minervini A, Serni S, Tuccio A et al (2012) Simple enucleation versus radical nephrectomy in the treatment of pT1a and pT1b renal cell carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 19(2):694–700
Edge SB, Compton CC (2010) The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 17(6):1471–1474
Kovacs G, Akhtar M, Beckwith BJ et al (1997) The Heidelberg classification of renal cell tumours. J Pathol 183(2):131–133
Fuhrman SA, Lasky LC, Limas C (1982) Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 6(7):655–663
Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Lane BR et al (2007) Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors. J Urol 178(1):41–46
Campbell SC, Novick AC, Belldegrun A et al (2009) Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass. J Urol 182(4):1271–1279
Jeong SJ, Kim KT, Chung MS et al (2010) The prognostic value of the width of the surgical margin in the enucleoresection of small renal cell carcinoma: an intermediate-term follow-up. Urology 76(3):587–592
Azhar RA, de Castro Abreu A L, Broxham E et al (2015) Histological analysis of the kidney tumor-parenchyma interface. J Urol 193(2):415–422
Cahill GF (1948) Cancer of kidneys, adrenals and testes. J Am Med Assoc 138(5):357–362
Rosenthal CL, Kraft R, Zingg EJ (1984) Organ-preserving surgery in renal cell carcinoma: tumor enucleation versus partial kidney resection. Eur Urol 10(4):222–228
Minervini A, di Cristofano C, Lapini A et al (2009) Histopathologic analysis of peritumoral pseudocapsule and surgical margin status after tumor enucleation for renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 55(6):1410–1418
Marszalek M, Carini M, Chlosta P et al (2012) Positive surgical margins after nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol 61(4):757–763
Pasticier G, Timsit MO, Badet L et al (2006) Nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma: detailed analysis of complications over a 15-year period. Eur Urol 49(3):485–490