Evolving Approach in Nephron-Sparing Surgery: Has Anything Changed from Open Surgery to Laparoscopy?

IF 0.6 4区 医学 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Müslüm Ergün, Süleyman Sağır, Osman Akyüz, Ramazan Yavuz Akman
{"title":"Evolving Approach in Nephron-Sparing Surgery: Has Anything Changed from Open Surgery to Laparoscopy?","authors":"Müslüm Ergün, Süleyman Sağır, Osman Akyüz, Ramazan Yavuz Akman","doi":"10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20247707.101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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 (<i>p</i> = 0.061). However, tumours treated with ONSS had significantly more adverse morphometric features (<i>p</i> < 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 (<i>p</i> = 0.032), respectively; The mean PADUA scores (SD) were 7.46 ± 1.14 and 6.8 ± 1.0 (<i>p</i> = 0.049), respectively; And the mean C-index (SD) scores were 1.39 ± 0.4 and 1.37 ± 0.5 (<i>p</i> = 0.062), respectively. No significant differences were found in the mean tumour diameter (cm) (Inter Quantile Range (IQR)) distribution of both groups (<i>p</i> = 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":48852,"journal":{"name":"Archivos Espanoles De Urologia","volume":"77 7","pages":"726-731"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archivos Espanoles De Urologia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20247707.101","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: 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.

Materials and methods: 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.

Results: 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 (p = 0.061). However, tumours treated with ONSS had significantly more adverse morphometric features (p < 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 (p = 0.032), respectively; The mean PADUA scores (SD) were 7.46 ± 1.14 and 6.8 ± 1.0 (p = 0.049), respectively; And the mean C-index (SD) scores were 1.39 ± 0.4 and 1.37 ± 0.5 (p = 0.062), respectively. No significant differences were found in the mean tumour diameter (cm) (Inter Quantile Range (IQR)) distribution of both groups (p = 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.

Conclusions: 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.

保肾手术方法的演变:从开放手术到腹腔镜手术有什么变化吗?
研究目的本研究旨在为肾脏保全手术(NSS)不同手术方法的疗效比较提供有价值的见解,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月期间因肾脏小肿块接受NSS手术的患者。共纳入97例患者(开腹手术组41例,腹腔镜手术组56例),并提供了人口统计学、放射学、术中、肾功能和肿瘤学随访数据。采用三种不同的解剖学评分系统(R.E.N.A.L.肾测量评分、PADUA评分和C-指数)评估肿瘤位置,并估计肿瘤与肾门和集合系统的距离:开腹肾脏保留手术组(ONSS)和腹腔镜肾脏保留手术组(LNSS)的平均肾脏肿瘤直径(标清)分别为 5.20 ± 2.30 和 4.90 ± 2.10,两组手术方法相似(P = 0.061)。然而,采用 ONSS 治疗的肿瘤在形态特征方面的不利因素明显较多(p < 0.05)。ONSS组和LNSS组的平均R.E.N.A.L.肾测量评分(SD)分别为6.15 ± 2.04和5.2 ± 1.4(P = 0.032);平均PADUA评分(SD)分别为7.46±1.14和6.8±1.0(P = 0.049);平均C指数(SD)分别为1.39±0.4和1.37±0.5(P = 0.062)。两组患者的平均肿瘤直径(厘米)(量纲间距(IQR))分布无明显差异(P = 0.058)。尽管LNSS组的输血率略有增加,但两组的估计失血量(EBL)、输血率和住院时间相似:结论:虽然 LNSS 在术中失血量、住院时间和输血率方面并不占优势,但其长期疗效与 ONSS 相当。我们的研究表明,如果与肾功能评分相匹配,LNSS 可以获得与 ONSS 相似的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Archivos Espanoles De Urologia
Archivos Espanoles De Urologia UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Archivos Españoles de Urología published since 1944, is an international peer review, susbscription Journal on Urology with original and review articles on different subjets in Urology: oncology, endourology, laparoscopic, andrology, lithiasis, pediatrics , urodynamics,... Case Report are also admitted.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信