Takagi Toshio, Kondo Tsunenori, Tachibana Hidekazu, Iizuka Junpei, Omae Kenji, Kobayashi Hirohito, Yoshida Kazuhiko, Tanabe Kazunari
Department of Urology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Int J Urol. 2017 Jul;24(7):505-510. doi: 10.1111/iju.13363. Epub 2017 May 14.
To compare surgical outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy in patients with chronic kidney disease.
Of 550 patients who underwent partial nephrectomy between 2012 and 2015, 163 patients with T1-2 renal tumors who had an estimated glomerular filtration rate between 30 and 60 mL/min/1.73 m , and underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy or open partial nephrectomy were retrospectively analyzed. To minimize selection bias between the two surgical methods, patient variables were adjusted by 1:1 propensity score matching.
The present study included 75 patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and 88 undergoing open partial nephrectomy. After propensity score matching, 40 patients were included in each operative group. The mean preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate was 49 mL/min/1.73 m . The mean ischemia time was 21 min in robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (warm ischemia) and 35 min in open partial nephrectomy (cold ischemia). Preservation of the estimated glomerular filtration rate 3-6 months postoperatively was not significantly different between robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy (92% vs 91%, P = 0.9348). Estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy group than in the open partial nephrectomy group (104 vs 185 mL, P = 0.0025). The postoperative length of hospital stay was shorter in the robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy group than in the open partial nephrectomy group (P < 0.0001). The prevalence of Clavien-Dindo grade 3 complications and a negative surgical margin status were not significantly different between the two groups.
In our experience, robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy provide similar outcomes in terms of functional preservation and perioperative complications among patients with chronic kidney disease. However, a lower estimated blood loss and shorter postoperative length of hospital stay can be obtained with robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.
比较机器人辅助腹腔镜下肾部分切除术与开放性肾部分切除术治疗慢性肾病患者的手术效果。
回顾性分析2012年至2015年间接受肾部分切除术的550例患者,其中163例T1-2期肾肿瘤患者,估计肾小球滤过率在30至60 mL/min/1.73 m²之间,且接受了机器人辅助腹腔镜下肾部分切除术或开放性肾部分切除术。为尽量减少两种手术方法之间的选择偏倚,通过1:1倾向评分匹配对患者变量进行了调整。
本研究包括75例行机器人辅助腹腔镜下肾部分切除术的患者和88例行开放性肾部分切除术的患者。倾向评分匹配后,每个手术组纳入40例患者。术前平均估计肾小球滤过率为49 mL/min/1.73 m²。机器人辅助腹腔镜下肾部分切除术(热缺血)的平均缺血时间为21分钟,开放性肾部分切除术(冷缺血)为35分钟。机器人辅助腹腔镜下肾部分切除术与开放性肾部分切除术术后3至6个月估计肾小球滤过率的保留情况无显著差异(92%对91%,P = 0.9348)。机器人辅助腹腔镜下肾部分切除术组的估计失血量显著低于开放性肾部分切除术组(104对185 mL,P = 0.0025)。机器人辅助腹腔镜下肾部分切除术组的术后住院时间短于开放性肾部分切除术组(P < 0.0001)。两组Clavien-Dindo 3级并发症的发生率和手术切缘阴性情况无显著差异。
根据我们的经验,对于慢性肾病患者,机器人辅助腹腔镜下肾部分切除术和开放性肾部分切除术在功能保留和围手术期并发症方面的效果相似。然而,机器人辅助腹腔镜下肾部分切除术的估计失血量更低,术后住院时间更短。