Shu Fan, Liu Zhuo, Duan Peichen, Hao Yichang, Ma Xin, Zhang Hongxian, Wang Guoliang, Tian Xiaojun, Liu Lei, Zhang Shudong
Department of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Department of Urology, Tongxin People's Hospital, Tongxin, Ningxia, People's Republic of China.
Cancer Med. 2025 Feb;14(3):e70625. doi: 10.1002/cam4.70625.
To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) and develop a prediction model for reference to select the approach.
We retrospectively reviewed our single-institutional RPN database. The patients were divided into training and validation sets. In training set, transperitoneal and retroperitoneal cases were matched using propensity score matching to balance confounding factors. The intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of both approaches were compared. A prediction model was constructed to predict the probability of the retroperitoneal approach. The model was then externally validated using the data from the validation set.
A total of 318 patients were included in the training set, and after propensity score matching, 200 cases were left. Additionally, 92 patients were included in the validation set. The estimated blood loss (p = 0.021) and the hemoglobin change (p = 0.016) were greater in the transperitoneal group. There was no significant difference in operative time (p = 0.539), warm ischemia time (p = 0.678), hospitalization time (p = 0.673), extubation time (p = 0.621), creatinine change (p = 0.623), negative margin (p = 1), local recurrence (p = 1), postoperative complication (p = 0.229), long-term creatinine (p = 0.158), and overall survival (p = 0.671) between the two groups. Tumor diameter, anteroposterior location, longitudinal location, and accessory renal artery were employed as variables to construct the prediction model, resulting in area under the curve values of 0.84 and 0.77, respectively, during internal and external validation.
Retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches of RPN showed no difference in perioperative outcomes except estimated blood loss and hemoglobin change. The retroperitoneal approach is recommended for smaller tumors located in the upper pole or posterior and the presence of an accessory renal artery. Our model is available to predict the probability of the retroperitoneal approach.
比较经腹腔和经腹膜后机器人辅助部分肾切除术(RPN)的围手术期和术后结果,并建立一个预测模型以供参考选择手术入路。
我们回顾性分析了单中心的RPN数据库。将患者分为训练集和验证集。在训练集中,采用倾向评分匹配法对经腹腔和经腹膜后病例进行匹配,以平衡混杂因素。比较两种手术入路的术中及术后结果。构建一个预测模型来预测经腹膜后入路的概率。然后使用验证集的数据对该模型进行外部验证。
训练集共纳入318例患者,倾向评分匹配后剩余200例。此外,验证集纳入92例患者。经腹腔组的估计失血量(p = 0.021)和血红蛋白变化(p = 0.016)更大。两组在手术时间(p = 0.539)、热缺血时间(p = 0.678)、住院时间(p = 0.673)、拔管时间(p = 0.621)、肌酐变化(p = 0.623)、切缘阴性(p = 1)、局部复发(p = 1)、术后并发症(p = 0.229)、长期肌酐(p = 0.158)和总生存率(p = 0.671)方面无显著差异。将肿瘤直径、前后位置、纵向位置和副肾动脉作为变量构建预测模型,内部验证和外部验证期间曲线下面积值分别为0.84和0.77。
RPN的经腹膜后和经腹腔入路除估计失血量和血红蛋白变化外,围手术期结果无差异。对于位于上极或后方的较小肿瘤以及存在副肾动脉的情况,建议采用经腹膜后入路。我们的模型可用于预测经腹膜后入路的概率。