Veccia Alessandro, Dell'oglio Paolo, Antonelli Alessandro, Minervini Andrea, Simone Giuseppe, Challacombe Benjamin, Perdonà Sisto, Porter James, Zhang Chao, Capitanio Umberto, Sundaram Chandru P, Cacciamani Giovanni, Aron Monish, Anele Uzoma, Hampton Lance J, Simeone Claudio, De Naeyer Geert, Bradshawh Aaron, Mari Andrea, Campi Riccardo, Carini Marco, Fiori Cristian, Gallucci Michele, Jacobsohn Ken, Eun Daniel, Lau Clayton, Kaouk Jihad, Derweesh Ithaar, Porpiglia Francesco, Mottrie Alexandre, Autorino Riccardo
Division of Urology, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, VA, USA.
Unit of Urology, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Science, and Public Health, ASST Spedali Civili Hospital, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2020 Feb;72(1):99-108. doi: 10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03583-5. Epub 2019 Sep 13.
Recent evidence suggests that the "oldest old" patients might benefit of partial nephrectomy (PN), but decision-making for this subset of patients is still controversial. Aim of this study is to compare outcomes of robotic partial (RPN) or radical nephrectomy (RRN) for large renal masses in patients older than 65 years.
We identified 417≥65 years old patients who underwent RRN or RPN for cT1b or ≥cT2 renal mass at 17 high volume centers. Propensity score match analysis was performed adjusting for age, ASA≥3, pre-operative eGFR, and clinical tumor size. Predictors of complications, functional and oncological outcomes were evaluated in multivariable logistic and Cox regression models.
After propensity score analysis, 73 patients in the RPN group were matched with 74 in the RRN group. R.E.N.A.L. Score (9.6±1.7 vs. 8.6±1.7; P<0.001), and high complexity (56 vs. 15%; P=0.001) were higher in the RRN. Estimated blood loss was higher in the RPN group (200 vs. 100 mL; P<0.001). RPN showed higher rate of overall complications (38 vs. 23%; P=0.05), but not major complications (P=0.678). At last follow-up, RPN group showed better functional outcomes both in eGFR (55.4±22.6 vs. 45.7±15.7 mL/min; P=0.016) and lower eGFR variation (9.7 vs. 23.0 mL/min; P<0.001). The procedure type was not associated with recurrence free survival (RFS) (HR: 0.47; P=0.152) and overall mortality (OM) (0.22; P=0.084).
RPN in elderly patients with large renal masses provides acceptable surgical, and oncological outcomes allowing better functional preservation relative to RRN. The decision to undergo RPN in this subset of patients should be tailored on a case by case basis.
近期证据表明,“高龄老人”患者可能从部分肾切除术(PN)中获益,但针对这一亚组患者的决策仍存在争议。本研究的目的是比较65岁以上患有较大肾肿块的患者接受机器人辅助部分肾切除术(RPN)或根治性肾切除术(RRN)的疗效。
我们在17家大型医疗中心确定了417例年龄≥65岁、因cT1b期或≥cT2期肾肿块接受RRN或RPN的患者。进行倾向评分匹配分析,对年龄、美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)分级≥3级、术前估算肾小球滤过率(eGFR)和临床肿瘤大小进行校正。在多变量逻辑回归和Cox回归模型中评估并发症、功能和肿瘤学结局的预测因素。
经过倾向评分分析,RPN组73例患者与RRN组74例患者匹配。RPN组的R.E.N.A.L.评分(9.6±1.7对8.6±1.7;P<0.001)和高复杂性比例(56%对15%;P=0.001)更高。RPN组的估计失血量更高(200对100 mL;P<0.001)。RPN组的总体并发症发生率更高(38%对23%;P=0.05),但严重并发症发生率无差异(P=0.678)。在末次随访时,RPN组在eGFR(55.4±22.6对45.7±15.7 mL/分钟;P=0.016)和较低的eGFR变化值(9.7对23.0 mL/分钟;P<0.001)方面均显示出更好的功能结局。手术方式与无复发生存期(RFS)(风险比:0.47;P=0.152)和总死亡率(OM)(0.22;P=0.084)无关。
对于患有较大肾肿块的老年患者,RPN提供了可接受的手术和肿瘤学结局,相对于RRN能更好地保留肾功能。对于这一亚组患者,是否进行RPN的决策应逐案定制。