Zinssius Daniel, Jünemann Klaus-Peter, Geiger Friedemann, Hamann Claudius, Seiler Felix, Osmonov Daniar
Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Klinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Kiel.
Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Institut für medizinische Psychologie und medizinische Soziologie, Kiel.
Aktuelle Urol. 2022 Sep;53(5):423-430. doi: 10.1055/a-0888-7234. Epub 2019 Jun 26.
Due to the rapid development of minimally-invasive surgery, there is a broader indication for surgical preservation of renal tissue. Current research suggests that, apart from the size of the tumour, its exact anatomical position should be considered when seeking optimal surgical treatment for individual patients. Therefore, numerous nephrometry scores have emerged, the Padua score and the R.E.N.A.L. score being most commonly used. Based on our patient population, we aimed to shed light on the question which score is best suited to assess the feasibility of nephron-sparing surgery and which can predict complications most accurately.
This study included 117 patients treated with partial nephrectomy at the University Hospital in Kiel (UKSH, Campus Kiel) between 2014 and 2017. The imaging results (computed tomography and magnetic resonance tomography) were retrospectively evaluated according to the Padua and R.E.N.A.L. score criteria. In some cases, radical nephrectomy became necessary despite the planned partial nephrectomy. We evaluated group differences regarding both nephrometry scores in these cases and the cases without radical nephrectomy. Then we performed correlation analyses regarding score outcome, operation time as well as perioperative, postoperative and overall complications.
The tumours requiring treatment by radical nephrectomy (10 out of 117) had significantly higher scores only when the R.E.N.A.L. score was applied (mean difference 1.059, p < 0.05). Both the Padua and the R.E.N.A.L. score were positive correlated with operation time (R.E.N.A.L. score: correlation coefficient 0.284, p < 0.05, Padua score: coefficient 0.312, p < 0.05) as well as perioperative, postoperative and overall complications (R.E.N.A.L. score: coefficient 0.216, p < 0.05, Padua score: coefficient 0.192, p < 0.05).
Each of the examined scores can be used to assess the risk of partial nephrectomy. For our patients, the preoperative application of the R.E.N.A.L. score would have been advantageous. Preoperative nephrometry scores are a useful tool and should be applied in addition to the surgeon's subjective evaluation. There is a lack of prospective studies investigating this issue.
由于微创手术的快速发展,保留肾组织的手术适应证更为广泛。目前的研究表明,在为个体患者寻求最佳手术治疗时,除了肿瘤大小外,还应考虑其确切的解剖位置。因此,出现了许多肾计量评分,其中帕多瓦评分和R.E.N.A.L.评分最为常用。基于我们的患者群体,我们旨在阐明哪个评分最适合评估保留肾单位手术的可行性,以及哪个评分能够最准确地预测并发症。
本研究纳入了2014年至2017年间在基尔大学医院(UKSH,基尔校区)接受部分肾切除术的117例患者。根据帕多瓦和R.E.N.A.L.评分标准对影像学结果(计算机断层扫描和磁共振断层扫描)进行回顾性评估。在某些情况下,尽管计划进行部分肾切除术,但仍有必要进行根治性肾切除术。我们评估了这些病例与未进行根治性肾切除术病例在两种肾计量评分方面的组间差异。然后,我们对评分结果、手术时间以及围手术期、术后和总体并发症进行了相关性分析。
仅在应用R.E.N.A.L.评分时,需要进行根治性肾切除术的肿瘤(117例中的10例)得分显著更高(平均差异1.059,p<0.05)。帕多瓦评分和R.E.N.A.L.评分均与手术时间(R.E.N.A.L.评分:相关系数0.284,p<0.05,帕多瓦评分:系数0.312,p<0.05)以及围手术期、术后和总体并发症(R.E.N.A.L.评分:系数0.216,p<0.05,帕多瓦评分:系数0.192,p<0.05)呈正相关。
每个检查的评分都可用于评估部分肾切除术的风险。对于我们的患者,术前应用R.E.N.A.L.评分可能会更有利。术前肾计量评分是一个有用的工具,除了外科医生的主观评估外,还应加以应用。目前缺乏前瞻性研究来调查这个问题。