Suppr超能文献

446 例连续病例中机器人辅助部分肾切除术治疗肾门与非肾门病变的多机构分析。

Multi-institutional analysis of robotic partial nephrectomy for hilar versus nonhilar lesions in 446 consecutive cases.

机构信息

Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.

出版信息

Eur Urol. 2011 Mar;59(3):325-30. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.11.017. Epub 2010 Nov 21.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches to partial nephrectomy have been rapidly gaining popularity but require advanced laparoscopic surgical skills. Renal hilar tumors, due to their anatomic location, pose additional technical challenges to the operating surgeon.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) for hilar and nonhilar tumors in our large multicenter contemporary series of patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data on 446 consecutive patients who underwent RPN by renal surgeons experienced in minimally invasive techniques at four academic institutions from June 2006 to March 2010. Patients were stratified into two groups: those with hilar lesions and those with nonhilar lesions.

MEASUREMENTS

Patient demographics, operative outcomes, and postoperative outcomes, including oncologic outcomes, were recorded.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Forty-one patients (9%) had hilar renal masses; 405 patients (91%) had nonhilar masses. There was no statistical differences in patient demographics except for larger median tumor size in the hilar cohort (3.2 cm vs 2.6 cm; p=0.001). The only significant difference in operative outcomes was an increase in warm ischemia times for the hilar group versus the nonhilar group (26.3±7.4 min vs 19.6±10.0 min; p=<0.0001). There were no differences in postoperative outcomes; however, there was a trend for increased risk of malignancy and higher stage tumors in the hilar lesion group. Final pathologic margin status was similar in both groups. Only one patient in the nonhilar group had evidence of recurrence at 21 mo. The study was limited by the lack of standard anatomic classification of renal tumors and the potential influence of the surgeons' prior robotic experience.

CONCLUSIONS

The data represent the largest series of its kind and strongly suggest that RPN is a safe, effective, and feasible option for the minimally invasive approach to renal hilar tumors with no increased risk of adverse outcomes compared with nonhilar tumors in the hands of experienced robotic surgeons.

摘要

背景

微创肾部分切除术已迅速普及,但需要先进的腹腔镜手术技能。由于其解剖位置,肾门肿瘤给手术医生带来了额外的技术挑战。

目的

我们比较了机器人辅助肾部分切除术(RPN)治疗肾门和非肾门肿瘤的结果,这是我们在四大医学中心进行的大型多中心当代系列患者的研究。

设计、设置和参与者:我们回顾性分析了 2006 年 6 月至 2010 年 3 月期间,4 家学术机构的微创技术经验丰富的肾外科医生对 446 例连续患者进行的 RPN 前瞻性收集的数据。患者分为两组:肾门病变组和非肾门病变组。

测量

记录患者的人口统计学数据、手术结果和术后结果,包括肿瘤学结果。

结果和局限性

41 例(9%)患者有肾门肿瘤;405 例(91%)患者有非肾门肿瘤。除肾门肿瘤组的肿瘤中位数较大(3.2cm 对 2.6cm;p=0.001)外,患者的人口统计学数据无统计学差异。手术结果的唯一显著差异是肾门组的热缺血时间较非肾门组增加(26.3±7.4min 对 19.6±10.0min;p=<0.0001)。两组术后结果无差异;然而,肾门病变组恶性肿瘤和较高分期肿瘤的风险增加。两组的最终病理边缘状态相似。非肾门组只有 1 例患者在 21 个月时有复发迹象。研究的局限性在于缺乏对肾肿瘤的标准解剖分类,以及外科医生之前的机器人手术经验可能产生的影响。

结论

该数据代表了同类研究中最大的系列,强烈表明在经验丰富的机器人外科医生手中,RPN 是一种安全、有效和可行的微创方法,用于治疗肾门肿瘤,与非肾门肿瘤相比,其不良结果的风险没有增加。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验