Comparison of Measured Renal Tumor Size Versus R.E.N.A.L. Nephrometry Score in Predicting Patient Outcomes After Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (12) ◽  
pp. 1471-1476 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason C. Sea ◽  
Clinton D. Bahler ◽  
Eric Mendonsa ◽  
Steven M. Lucas ◽  
Chandru P. Sundaram
2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Wenlong Zhong ◽  
Yicong Du ◽  
Lei Zhang ◽  
Xuesong Li ◽  
Cuijian Zhang ◽  
...  

Objective. To evaluate the feasibility of an internal suspension technique in retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for the management of renal ventral tumors. Methods. Between January 2013 and July 2016, a total of 145 patients underwent retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with or without internal suspension technique. For patients who underwent internal suspension technique, the surgeons preserved the external fat of the renal tumor as a suspension traction measure when separating the kidney. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed according to age, gender, body mass index, tumor size, tumor location, and RENAL nephrometry score. Patient characteristics and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were compared between the groups. Results. After PSM, 32 patients treated with the internal suspension technique were compared with 32 cases treated without such technique. Baseline characteristics were statistically similar for the cohorts. The use of our new technique resulted in shorter warm ischemia time (WIT: 15.0 versus 19.0 minutes, P=.002) and tumor resection time (4.0 versus 7.5 minutes, P<0.001). The rate of WIT >25 minutes decreased (6.3% versus 25%, P=.04) and the trifecta outcomes were significantly improved (87.5% versus 62.5%, P=.02). Conclusion. Internal suspension technique is a feasible and safe procedure in retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal ventral tumors.


Videourology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronit Patnaik ◽  
Cheuk Fan Shum ◽  
Chandru P. Sundaram

2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. eV23
Author(s):  
G. Simone ◽  
R. Papalia ◽  
M. Ferriero ◽  
S. Guaglianone ◽  
M. Costantini ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 260-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vanessa Acosta Ruiz ◽  
Sam Ladjevardi ◽  
Einar Brekkan ◽  
Michael Häggman ◽  
Maria Lönnemark ◽  
...  

Background Comparable oncological outcomes have been seen after surgical nephrectomy and thermal ablation of renal tumors recently. However, periprocedural outcome needs to be assessed for aiding treatment decision. Purpose To compare efficacy rates and periprocedural outcome (technical success, session time, hospitalization time, and complications) after renal tumor treatment with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Material and Methods The initial experience with 49 (treated with LPN) and 84 (treated with RFA) consecutive patients for a single renal tumor (diameter ≤ 5 cm, limited to the kidney) during 2007–2014 was evaluated. Patient and tumor characteristics, efficacy rates, and periprocedural outcome were collected retrospectively. The stratified Mantel Haenzel and Van Elteren tests, adjusted for tumor complexity (with the modified R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score [m-RNS]), were used to assess differences in treatment outcomes. Results Primary efficacy rate was 98% for LPN and 85.7% for RFA; secondary efficacy rate was 93.9% for LPN and 95.2% for RFA; and technical success rate was 87.8% for LPN and 100% for RFA. Median session (m-RNS adjusted P < 0.001; LPN 215 min, RFA 137 min) and median hospitalization time were longer after LPN (m-RNS adjusted P < 0.001; LPN 5 days, RFA 2 days). Side effects were uncommon (LPN 2%, RFA 4.8%). Complications were more frequent after LPN (m-RNS adjusted P < 0.001; LPN 42.9%, RFA 10.7%). Conclusion Both methods achieved equivalent secondary efficacy rates. RFA included several treatment sessions, but session and hospitalization times were shorter, and complications were less frequent than for LPN. The differences remained after adjustment for renal tumor complexity.


2011 ◽  
Vol 102 (5) ◽  
pp. 679-685 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryoichi Shiroki ◽  
Takahiro Maruyama ◽  
Mamoru Kusaka ◽  
Shigeto Washida ◽  
Masaru Hikichi ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document