USC Institute of Urology & the Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Department of Urology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
USC Institute of Urology & the Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Eur Urol Focus. 2019 Jul;5(4):619-635. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.01.012. Epub 2018 Jul 14.
During robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN), various techniques of hilar control have been described, including on-clamp, early unclamping, selective/super-selective clamping, and completely-unclamped RPN.
To evaluate the impact of various hilar control techniques on perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of RPN for tumors.
We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of all comparative studies on various hilar control techniques during RPN using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement, and Methods and Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Review of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Cumulative meta-analysis of comparative studies was conducted using Review Manager 5.3.
Of 987 RPN publications in the literature, 19 qualified for this analysis. Comparison of off-clamp versus on-clamp RPN (n=9), selective clamping versus on-clamp RPN (n=3), super selective clamping versus on-clamp RPN (n=5), and early unclamped versus on-clamp (n=3) were reported. Patients undergoing RPN using off-clamp, selective/super selective, or early unclamp techniques had higher estimated blood loss compared with on-clamp RPN (weight mean difference [WMD]: 47.83, p=0.000, WMD: 41.06, p=0.02, and WMD: 37.50, p=0.47); however, this did not seem clinically relevant, since transfusion rates were similar (odds ratio [OR]: 0.98, p=0.95, OR: 0.72, p=0.7, and OR: 1.36, p=0.33, respectively). All groups appeared similar with regards to hospital stay, transfusions, overall and major complications, and positive cancer margin rates. Short- and long-term renal functional outcomes appeared superior in the off-clamp and super selective clamp groups compared with the on-clamp RPN cohort.
Off-clamp, selective/super selective clamp, and early unclamp hilar control techniques are safe and feasible approaches for RPN surgery, with similar perioperative and oncological outcomes compared with on-clamp RPN. Minimizing global renal ischemia may provide superior renal function preservation. However, higher quality data are necessary for definitive conclusions in this regard.
The objective of partial nephrectomy is to treat the cancer while maximizing renal function preservation. Clamping the main vessels is done primarily to reduce the blood loss during partial nephrectomy; however, vascular clamping can compromise kidney function. In order to avoid clamping, various techniques have been described. Our analysis showed that techniques that avoid main renal artery clamping during RPN are associated with better renal function preservation, yet deliver non-inferior perioperative and oncological outcomes as compared with RPN procedures that clamp the main vessels.
在机器人辅助部分肾切除术(RPN)中,已经描述了各种肾门控制技术,包括夹闭、早期松开、选择性/超选择性夹闭和完全无夹闭 RPN。
评估各种肾门控制技术对肿瘤 RPN 的围手术期、功能和肿瘤学结果的影响。
我们根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目以及医疗保健研究和质量机构的有效性和比较效果评估方法和指南,对使用 PubMed、Scopus 和 Web of Science 进行的所有比较研究进行了系统的文献综述和荟萃分析。使用 Review Manager 5.3 对比较研究进行了累积荟萃分析。
在文献中对 987 项 RPN 出版物进行了筛选,其中 19 项符合本分析要求。报道了夹闭与非夹闭 RPN(n=9)、选择性夹闭与夹闭 RPN(n=3)、超选择性夹闭与夹闭 RPN(n=5)和早期无夹闭与夹闭 RPN(n=3)的比较。与夹闭 RPN 相比,接受非夹闭、选择性/超选择性或早期无夹闭技术的 RPN 患者的估计失血量更高(加权均数差[WMD]:47.83,p=0.000,WMD:41.06,p=0.02,和 WMD:37.50,p=0.47);然而,这似乎没有临床意义,因为输血率相似(比值比[OR]:0.98,p=0.95,OR:0.72,p=0.7,和 OR:1.36,p=0.33,分别)。所有组在住院时间、输血、整体和主要并发症以及阳性癌症边缘率方面似乎相似。与夹闭 RPN 队列相比,夹闭和超选择性夹闭组的短期和长期肾功能结果似乎更好。
非夹闭、选择性/超选择性夹闭和早期无夹闭肾门控制技术是 RPN 手术的安全可行方法,与夹闭 RPN 相比,具有相似的围手术期和肿瘤学结果。最大限度地减少全球肾缺血可能会提供更好的肾功能保护。然而,在这方面需要更高质量的数据来得出明确的结论。
部分肾切除术的目的是在治疗癌症的同时最大限度地保留肾功能。夹闭主要血管主要是为了减少部分肾切除术期间的失血;然而,血管夹闭会损害肾脏功能。为了避免夹闭,已经描述了各种技术。我们的分析表明,在 RPN 中避免主肾动脉夹闭的技术与更好的肾功能保留相关,但与夹闭主血管的 RPN 手术相比,提供了非劣效的围手术期和肿瘤学结果。