Nephron sparing surgery for the treatment of renal masses: A single center experience

2021 ◽  
pp. 039156032199355
Author(s):  
Michele Zazzara ◽  
Roberto Carando ◽  
Arjan Nazaraj ◽  
Marcello Scarcia ◽  
Michele Romano ◽  
...  

Background: Nowadays, the partial nephrectomy (PN) not only is considered oncological equivalent to radical nephrectomy as renal tumor’s treatment, but has also give benefits in quality of life and overall survival of patients. Objectives: The primary objective of the present study was to report our single center experience with NSS, predominantly performed by a robot assisted access, in a high-volume center with large experience with minimally invasive surgery. Methods: Between June 2018 and January 2020, a consecutive series of 109 patients (pts) with a renal mass suspicious of renal cell carcinoma, feasible of NSS, detected by ultrasound and abdominal computed tomography (CT), underwent NSS and they were included in a prospectively maintained institutional database. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics, perioperative and postoperative parameters, pathological data were recorded. Results: The mean clinical maximum CT tumor diameter was 37.3 ± 19.6 mm (median 31.5 mm; interquartile range 25–45 mm). PADUA risk was low in 54 pts (49.5%), intermediate in 48 pts (44.0%), high in seven pts (6.4%). The clinical T stage was mostly pT1a (70.6%). NSS was performed by open surgery in nine pts (8.3%), laparoscopy in one pts (0.9%) and was robot assisted in 99 pts (90.8%). A simple enucleation was performed in 67 pts (61.5%), an enucleoresection was performed in 37 pts (33.9%) and a partial nephrectomy was performed in five pts (4.6%). Warm ischemia was performed in 41 pts (37.6%), with a mean warm ischemia time of 5.1 ± 7.1 min. The mean pathological maximum tumor diameter was 35.5 ± 21.7 mm (median 30 mm; interquartile range 22–40 mm). Overall PSM rate was 11.9% (13 pts). In 78% of cases no complication was recorded. No major complications (grade III-IV-V) were noted. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that NSS is a safe, reproducible and minimally invasive approach as treatment of small renal masses. NSS permits to achieve a fine oncological management without any worsening of renal function.

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-51
Author(s):  
Hua-shui Liu ◽  
Sheng-jun Duan ◽  
Fu-zhen Xin ◽  
Zhen Zhang ◽  
Xue-guang Wang ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 266
Author(s):  
C. Schwentner ◽  
A. Lunacek ◽  
A. Pelzer ◽  
H. Steiner ◽  
R. Neururer ◽  
...  

Videourology ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mauro Gacci ◽  
Domenico Veneziano ◽  
Andrea Cocci ◽  
Arcangelo Sebastianelli ◽  
Matteo Salvi ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 402-402
Author(s):  
R. L. O'Malley ◽  
T. Kowalik ◽  
M. H. Hayn ◽  
T. B. Collins ◽  
H. L. Kim ◽  
...  

402 Background: Although nephron-sparing surgery is the standard of care for the treatment of small renal masses, partial nephrectomy (PN) remains under-utilized. A potential reason for the discrepancy is the desire for minimally invasive surgical approaches but limitation of the advanced laparoscopic techniques needed to perform PN. Robot-assisted surgery has eased the transition to minimally invasive prostate surgery and may also do so for PN, although some believe costs may be prohibitive. The purpose of this investigation was to quantify the cost of robot-assisted PN (RAPN) compared to laparoscopic PN (LPN). Methods: An institutional renal tumor database was used to identify consecutive patients with normal renal function who underwent RAPN for a localized renal mass by a single surgeon who had performed < 25 previously. The 35 RAPN patients were compared to the last 35 similar patients who underwent LPN by a surgeon who had performed > 150 previous LPNs. Surgical outcomes were compared. Because room time, length of stay and Cxs were similar, cost was compared based only on the total operating room charges (ORC). Total ORC included surgeon and anesthesia fees, as well as labor and supply costs. The depreciation of the robot was included in the ORC as a higher per unit time charge than for LPN. Data on charges were available for the first 29 RAPN patients which were then compared to the last 29 LPN patients. Results: Dates of operation ranged from October 2008 to July 2009 for LPN and January 2010 to August 2010 for RAPN. Patient and tumor characteristics were similar between groups, except tumor size, which was larger in the RAPN group (3.6 ± 1.8 cm vs. 2.7 ± 0.9 cm, p = 0.007). Cxs, surgical and oncologic outcomes were similar. Mean ORC (IQR) for the LPN group was $28,606 (4,796) and for the RAPN group was $30,874 (20,389) representing a difference of $2,269. If you subtract an additional $858 for the average yearly inflation rate (3%), the difference is $1,411. Conclusions: RAPN is a safe option with perioperative outcomes similar to those of LPN performed by an experienced surgeon. A cost difference of $2,269 per procedure as estimated using ORC may decrease as the experience of the operating room staff and surgeon increase. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document