Yoon Young Eun, Lee Hyung Ho, Kim Ki Hong, Park Sung Yul, Moon Hong Sang, Lee Seung Ryeol, Hong Young Kwon, Park Dong Soo, Kim Dae Keun
Department of Urology, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul.
Department of Urology, National Health Insurance Corporation Ilsan Hospital, Gyeonggi-do.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Nov;97(45):e13102. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000013102.
Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) and focal therapy (FT) have both been successfully employed in the management of small renal masses. However, despite this being the era of minimally invasive surgery, few comparative studies exist on RPN and FT. The aim of our study is to review perioperative, renal functional and oncologic outcomes of FT and RPN in cT1 renal masses.
Literature published in Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases up to April 22, 2018, was systematically searched. We included literature comparing outcomes of FT (radiofrequency ablation, cryoablation, microwave ablation, and irreversible electroporation) and RPN. Studies that reported only on laparoscopic partial nephrectomy or open partial nephrectomy, and review articles, editorials, letters, or cost analyses were excluded. In total, data from 1166 patients were included.
From 858 total articles, 7 nonrandomized, observational studies were included. Compared with RPN, FT was associated with a significantly lower decrease of estimated glomerular filtration rate (weighted mean difference [WMD] -8.06 mL/min/1.73 m; confidence interval [CI] -15.85 to -0.26; P = .04), and lower estimated blood loss (WMD -49.61 mL; CI -60.78 to -38.45; P < .001). However, patients who underwent FT had a significantly increased risk of local recurrence (risk ratio [RR] 9.89; CI 4.24-23.04; P < .001) and distant metastasis (RR 6.42; CI 1.70-24.33; P = .006). However, operative times, lengths of stay, and complication rates were revealed to be similar between FT and RPN.
RPN has a substantial advantage in preventing cancer recurrence. However, in the era of minimally invasive surgery, FT has advantages in renal function preservation and less bleeding. Long-term follow-up for survival rates and comparative analysis of microwave ablation and irreversible electroporation are needed to extend FT for patients with significant morbidities and for those who need sufficient renal function preservation with minimal bleeding.
机器人辅助部分肾切除术(RPN)和局部治疗(FT)均已成功应用于小肾肿瘤的治疗。然而,尽管这是微创手术的时代,但关于RPN和FT的比较研究却很少。我们研究的目的是回顾FT和RPN治疗cT1期肾肿瘤的围手术期、肾功能及肿瘤学结局。
系统检索截至2018年4月22日发表在Medline、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆数据库中的文献。我们纳入了比较FT(射频消融、冷冻消融、微波消融和不可逆电穿孔)和RPN结局的文献。仅报道腹腔镜部分肾切除术或开放部分肾切除术的研究以及综述文章、社论、信件或成本分析均被排除。总共纳入了1166例患者的数据。
从总共858篇文章中,纳入了7项非随机观察性研究。与RPN相比,FT与估计肾小球滤过率的显著降低幅度较小相关(加权平均差[WMD]-8.06 mL/min/1.73 m;置信区间[CI]-15.85至-0.26;P = 0.04),且估计失血量较少(WMD-49.61 mL;CI-60.78至-38.45;P<0.001)。然而,接受FT的患者局部复发风险显著增加(风险比[RR]9.89;CI 4.24-23.04;P<0.001)和远处转移风险增加(RR 6.42;CI 1.70-24.33;P = 0.006)。然而,FT和RPN之间的手术时间、住院时间和并发症发生率相似。
RPN在预防癌症复发方面具有显著优势。然而,在微创手术时代,FT在肾功能保留和出血较少方面具有优势。需要对生存率进行长期随访,并对微波消融和不可逆电穿孔进行比较分析,以便将FT扩展应用于有严重合并症的患者以及那些需要以最少出血保留足够肾功能的患者。