Bertolo Riccardo, Bove Pierluigi, Sandri Marco, Celia Antonio, Cindolo Luca, Cipriani Chiara, Falsaperla Mario, Leonardo Costantino, Mari Andrea, Parma Paolo, Veccia Alessandro, Veneziano Domenico, Minervini Andrea, Antonelli Alessandro
Urology Department, San Carlo di Nancy Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Urology Unit, Department of Surgery, Tor Vergata University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022 Oct 28;46:75-81. doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.10.007. eCollection 2022 Dec.
Recent randomized trials (RCTs) in the field of robotic partial nephrectomy (PN) showed no significant differences in perioperative outcomes between the off- and on-clamp approaches.
To compare the perioperative outcomes of on- versus off-clamp pure laparoscopic PN (LPN).
A multi-institutional analysis of the on- versus off-clamp approach during LPN in the setting of an RCT (CLOCK II trial; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02287987) was performed.
Off- versus on-clamp LPN.
Baseline patient and tumor variables, and peri- and postoperative data were collected. Randomized allocation with a 1:1 ratio was assigned. Surgical strategy for managing the renal pedicle was dictated by the study protocol. In the off-clamp arm, the renal artery had to remain unclamped for the duration of the whole procedure. Reporting the intention-to-treat analysis is the purpose of the study.
The study recruited 249 patients. Of them, 123 and 126 were randomized and allocated into the on- and off-clamp treatment groups, respectively. Treatment groups were comparable at baseline after randomization with respect to patients' demographics, comorbidities, renal function, and tumor size and complexity. A univariable analysis found no differences in the perioperative outcomes between the groups, including median (interquartile range) estimated blood loss (150 [100-200] vs 150 [100-250] ml, = 0.2), grade ≥2 complication rate as classified according to the Clavien-Dindo system (5.7% vs 4.8%, = 0.6), and positive surgical margin rate (8.2% vs 3.5% for the on- vs off-clamp group, = 0.1). No differences were found in terms of the 1st (81.3 [66.7-94.3] vs 85.3 [71.0-97.7] ml/min, = 0.2) and 5th postoperative days estimated glomerular filtration rate (83.3 [70.5-93.7] vs 83.4 [68.6-139.3] ml/min, = 0.2). A multivariable analysis found each +1 increase in RENAL score corresponded to an increase in the protection from the occurrence of complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-0.97, = 0.034), while each +1 cm increase in tumor size corresponded to an increase in the risk of blood transfusion (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.14-1.70, = 0.001).
In the setting of an RCT, no differences were found in the perioperative and early functional outcomes between on- and off-clamp LPN.
In this study, we investigated, by means of a randomized trial, whether avoiding the clamping of renal artery during laparoscopic resection of renal mass is able to translate into benefits. We found no differences in terms of safety, efficacy, and renal function from the standard approach, which includes arterial clamping.
近期机器人辅助部分肾切除术(PN)领域的随机试验(RCT)表明,阻断肾蒂与不阻断肾蒂两种手术方式的围手术期结果无显著差异。
比较阻断肾蒂与不阻断肾蒂的单纯腹腔镜下部分肾切除术(LPN)的围手术期结果。
设计、地点与参与者:在一项RCT(CLOCK II试验;ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02287987)背景下,对LPN术中阻断肾蒂与不阻断肾蒂两种手术方式进行了多机构分析。
不阻断肾蒂与阻断肾蒂的LPN。
收集患者基线及肿瘤相关变量,以及围手术期和术后数据。采用1:1比例随机分配。肾蒂处理的手术策略由研究方案决定。在不阻断肾蒂组,整个手术过程中肾动脉必须保持不阻断状态。本研究旨在进行意向性分析。
本研究共纳入249例患者。其中,123例和126例分别随机分配至阻断肾蒂和不阻断肾蒂治疗组。随机分组后,两组在患者人口统计学、合并症、肾功能以及肿瘤大小和复杂性等基线特征方面具有可比性。单因素分析发现,两组围手术期结果无差异,包括中位(四分位间距)估计失血量(150[100 - 200] vs 150[100 - 250]ml,P = 0.2)、根据Clavien-Dindo系统分类的≥2级并发症发生率(5.7% vs 4.8%,P = 0.6)以及手术切缘阳性率(阻断肾蒂组与不阻断肾蒂组分别为8.2% vs 3.5%,P = 0.1)。术后第1天(81.3[66.7 - 94.3] vs 85.3[71.0 - 97.7]ml/min,P = 0.2)和第5天的估计肾小球滤过率(83.3[70.5 - 93.7] vs 83.4[68.6 - 139.3]ml/min,P = 0.2)也无差异。多因素分析发现,RENAL评分每增加1分,并发症发生风险降低(比值比[OR]0.72,95%置信区间[CI]0.54 - 0.97,P = 0.034);而肿瘤大小每增加1cm,输血风险增加(OR 1.39,95%CI 1.14 - 1.70,P = 0.001)。
在RCT背景下,阻断肾蒂与不阻断肾蒂的LPN在围手术期及早期功能结局方面无差异。
在本研究中,我们通过随机试验调查了腹腔镜肾肿块切除术中避免阻断肾动脉是否能带来益处。我们发现,与包括动脉阻断的标准手术方式相比,在安全性、有效性和肾功能方面并无差异。