Mendes Gonçalo, Madanelo Mariana, Vila Fernando, Versos Rui, Teixeira Bernardo Lobão, Rocha Maria Alexandra, Mesquita Sofia, Marques-Monteiro Miguel, Príncipe Paulo, Ramires Ricardo, Lindoro Joaquim, Fraga Avelino, Silva-Ramos Miguel
Urology Department, Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Santo António, 4099-001 Porto, Portugal.
Urology Department, Centro Hospitalar Tâmega e Sousa, 4564-007 Penafiel, Portugal.
J Clin Med. 2024 Jan 25;13(3):701. doi: 10.3390/jcm13030701.
The aim of our study is to compare the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic transperitoneal partial nephrectomy (LTPN) and laparoscopic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy (LRPN) for posterior cT1 renal tumors. We retrospectively collected data on all patients who consecutively underwent LTPN and LRPN for posterior cT1 renal tumors in three different centers from January 2015 to January 2023. Patients with a single, unilateral, cT1 renal mass, located in the posterior renal surface were included. Patients' data regarding perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes were collected from medical records and statistically analyzed and compared. A total of 128 patients was obtained, with 53 patients in the LPTN group and 75 patients in the LRPN group. Baseline characteristics were similar. Warm ischemia time (WIT) (18.8 vs. 22.6 min, = 0.002) and immediate postoperative eGFR drop (-6.1 vs. -13.0 mL/min/1.73 m, = 0.047) were significantly lower in the LPTN group. Estimated blood loss (EBL) (100 vs. 150 mL, = 0.043) was significantly lower in the LRPN group. All other perioperative and functional outcomes and complications were similar between the groups. The positive surgical margin (PSM) rate was lower in the LRPN group, although without statistical significance (7.2% vs. 13.5%, = 0.258). Surgical success defined by Trifecta (WIT ≤ 25 min, no PSM, and no major postoperative complication) was similar between both approaches. LTPN has significantly shorter WIT and a significantly smaller drop in immediate eGFR when compared to LRPN for posterior renal tumors. On the other hand, LRPN has significantly less EBL than LTPN. LRPN demonstrated fewer PSMs than LTPN, albeit without statistical significance. In terms of overall surgical success, as defined by Trifecta, both approaches achieved similar results.
我们研究的目的是比较腹腔镜经腹腔部分肾切除术(LTPN)和腹腔镜后腹腔部分肾切除术(LRPN)治疗肾后性cT1期肾肿瘤的围手术期、功能和肿瘤学结局。我们回顾性收集了2015年1月至2023年1月在三个不同中心连续接受LTPN和LRPN治疗肾后性cT1期肾肿瘤的所有患者的数据。纳入标准为单发性、单侧性、位于肾后表面的cT1期肾肿块患者。从病历中收集患者的围手术期、功能和肿瘤学结局数据,并进行统计分析和比较。共获得128例患者,LPTN组53例,LRPN组75例。基线特征相似。LPTN组的热缺血时间(WIT)(18.8 vs. 22.6分钟,P = 0.002)和术后即刻估算肾小球滤过率(eGFR)下降幅度(-6.1 vs. -13.0 mL/min/1.73 m²,P = 0.047)显著更低。LRPN组的估计失血量(EBL)(100 vs. 150 mL,P = 0.043)显著更低。两组之间所有其他围手术期和功能结局及并发症相似。LRPN组的手术切缘阳性(PSM)率更低,尽管无统计学意义(7.2% vs. 13.5%,P = 0.258)。两种手术方式以三联成功标准(WIT≤25分钟、无PSM且无重大术后并发症)定义的手术成功率相似。与LRPN相比,LTPN治疗肾后性肿瘤的WIT显著更短,术后即刻eGFR下降幅度显著更小。另一方面,LRPN的EBL比LTPN显著更少。LRPN的PSM比LTPN更少,尽管无统计学意义。就三联成功标准定义的总体手术成功率而言,两种手术方式取得了相似的结果。