Urology, Atlas University Medicine Hospital, 34200 Istanbul, Turkey.
Urology, Artuklu University, 47100 Mardin, Turkey.
Arch Esp Urol. 2024 Aug;77(7):726-731. doi: 10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20247707.101.
This study aimed to provide valuable insights into the comparative efficacy of different surgical approaches for nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) and contribute to the existing literature in this field.
This study included patients who underwent NSS for small renal masses between January 2016 and March 2024. A total of 97 patients (41 in the open approach group, 56 in the laparoscopic approach group) with demographic, radiological, intraoperative, renal functional, and oncological follow-up data were included. Three different anatomical scoring systems (R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score, PADUA score and C-index) were utilised to assess tumour location and estimate proximity to the hilum and collecting system.
In the open nephron-sparing surgery (ONSS) and laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery (LNSS) groups, the mean kidney tumour diameters (SD) were 5.20 ± 2.30 and 4.90 ± 2.10, which were similar in both surgical method groups ( = 0.061). However, tumours treated with ONSS had significantly more adverse morphometric features ( < 0.05). For ONSS and LNSS groups, the mean R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores (SD) were 6.15 ± 2.04 and 5.2 ± 1.4 ( = 0.032), respectively; The mean PADUA scores (SD) were 7.46 ± 1.14 and 6.8 ± 1.0 ( = 0.049), respectively; And the mean C-index (SD) scores were 1.39 ± 0.4 and 1.37 ± 0.5 ( = 0.062), respectively. No significant differences were found in the mean tumour diameter (cm) (Inter Quantile Range (IQR)) distribution of both groups ( = 0.058). Despite the slight increase in transfusion rate in the LNSS group, estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion rates, and length of hospital stay were similar in both groups.
Although LNSS does not appear superior in terms of intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay and transfusion rate, it provides comparable long-term outcomes to ONSS. Our study suggests that when matched with nephrometry scores, LNSS can achieve similar outcomes to ONSS.
本研究旨在提供有关保肾手术(NSS)中不同手术方法的比较疗效的有价值的见解,并为该领域的现有文献做出贡献。
本研究纳入了 2016 年 1 月至 2024 年 3 月期间接受 NSS 治疗的小肾肿瘤患者。共纳入了 97 名患者(开放手术组 41 名,腹腔镜手术组 56 名),包括人口统计学、影像学、术中、肾功能和肿瘤随访数据。使用三种不同的解剖评分系统(R.E.N.A.L. 肾脏测量评分、PADUA 评分和 C 指数)评估肿瘤位置并估计与肾门和收集系统的接近程度。
在开放保肾手术(ONSS)和腹腔镜保肾手术(LNSS)组中,肿瘤平均直径(标准差)分别为 5.20 ± 2.30 和 4.90 ± 2.10,两组手术方法的肿瘤直径相似( = 0.061)。然而,接受 ONSS 治疗的肿瘤具有明显更多的不良形态特征(<0.05)。对于 ONSS 和 LNSS 组,R.E.N.A.L. 肾脏测量评分的平均值(标准差)分别为 6.15 ± 2.04 和 5.2 ± 1.4( = 0.032);PADUA 评分的平均值(标准差)分别为 7.46 ± 1.14 和 6.8 ± 1.0( = 0.049);C 指数的平均值(标准差)评分分别为 1.39 ± 0.4 和 1.37 ± 0.5( = 0.062)。两组肿瘤平均直径(cm)(中位数范围(IQR))分布无显著差异( = 0.058)。尽管 LNSS 组的输血率略有增加,但估计失血量(EBL)、输血率和住院时间在两组之间相似。
尽管 LNSS 在术中失血量、住院时间和输血率方面似乎没有优势,但它提供了与 ONSS 相当的长期结果。我们的研究表明,当与肾脏测量评分匹配时,LNSS 可以实现与 ONSS 相似的结果。