Suppr超能文献

夹闭与非夹闭机器人辅助部分肾切除术实现改良三联征:来自大容量三级机器人中心的治疗倾向性逆概率加权分析。

On-clamp vs off-clamp robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for achieving modified trifecta: inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis from a high-volume tertiary robotic center.

机构信息

Department of Urology, Onze-Lieve-Vrouwziekenhuis, Aalst, Belgium.

ORSI Academy, Ghent, Belgium.

出版信息

J Robot Surg. 2024 Aug 21;18(1):327. doi: 10.1007/s11701-024-02078-3.

Abstract

On-clamp partial nephrectomy for the surgical treatment of renal masses poses the risk of ischemia and greater post-operative renal function loss. Conversely, the off-clamp technique might enhance renal function preservation by avoiding any ischemia time. Nevertheless, the debate persists regarding the efficacy of the on- versus off-clamp partial nephrectomy in achieving better surgical, functional, and oncological outcomes. We retrospectively assessed the data from patients undergoing Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy (RAPN) from 2016 and 2023 in a tertiary robotic center. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to account for selection bias in treatment allocation. The main objective of the study was assessing the achievement rates of a modified trifecta within the two groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis (MLRA) was employed to assess the predictors of trifecta achievement. 532 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 74.1% vs. 25.9% underwent on- and off-clamp, respectively. Balancing the two groups for the main predictors of on-clamp surgery, there were no significant differences between on- and off-clamp in terms of estimated blood loss, transfusion rate, intra- and post-operative complications, positive surgical margins, and post-operative mean reduction of eGFR. Finally, no differences were found in the rate of "trifecta" achievement between on-clamp and off-clamp RAPN (24.6% vs. 21%, p = 0.82). At MLRA, off-clamp technique was not a predictor of trifecta achievement compared to the on-clamp technique (off-clamp vs. on-clamp, aOR 1.24, 95% CIs [0.65-2.36], p = 0.58). Our study revealed that clamping technique does not imply clinically relevant differences in reaching trifecta outcomes.

摘要

夹闭式部分肾切除术治疗肾肿瘤存在缺血和术后肾功能丧失的风险。相反,无夹闭技术可以通过避免任何缺血时间来增强肾功能的保护。然而,关于夹闭式与无夹闭式部分肾切除术在实现更好的手术、功能和肿瘤学结果方面的疗效,仍存在争议。我们回顾性评估了 2016 年至 2023 年在一家三级机器人中心接受机器人辅助部分肾切除术(RAPN)的患者的数据。采用逆概率治疗加权(IPTW)来纠正治疗分配中的选择偏倚。研究的主要目的是评估两组中改良三联征的实现率。采用多变量逻辑回归分析(MLRA)来评估三联征实现的预测因素。共纳入 532 例患者,其中 74.1%和 25.9%分别接受夹闭式和无夹闭式手术。平衡两组夹闭手术的主要预测因素后,夹闭式和无夹闭式在估计失血量、输血率、术中及术后并发症、阳性切缘和术后平均 eGFR 下降方面无显著差异。最后,夹闭式和无夹闭式 RAPN 的“三联征”实现率无差异(24.6%vs.21%,p=0.82)。在 MLRA 中,与夹闭式技术相比,无夹闭技术不是三联征实现的预测因素(无夹闭式与夹闭式,aOR 1.24,95%CI [0.65-2.36],p=0.58)。我们的研究表明,夹闭技术在达到三联征结果方面并没有带来临床相关的差异。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验