Comparative analysis of the clinical efficacy of three minimally invasive surgical approaches for the treatment of simple renal cysts.

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Hao Gu, Ke Gao, Bin Wu, Jianxin Ni, Bao Wang, Guojun Wu
{"title":"Comparative analysis of the clinical efficacy of three minimally invasive surgical approaches for the treatment of simple renal cysts.","authors":"Hao Gu, Ke Gao, Bin Wu, Jianxin Ni, Bao Wang, Guojun Wu","doi":"10.1007/s00464-025-12235-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of three minimally invasive surgical approaches-percutaneous aspiration and sclerotherapy (PNA), laparoscopic retroperitoneal decortication (LRD), and percutaneous nephroscopic decortication (PCNL)-in the treatment of simple renal cysts, and to explore the optimal surgical strategy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on 90 patients with simple renal cysts treated at our institution between December 2021 and December 2023. Patients were divided into three groups based on the surgical approach received: PNA group, LRD group, and PCNL group, with 30 patients in each. Baseline characteristics (sex, age, cyst location, and size) were collected and compared. Clinical outcomes, including operative time, hospital stay, postoperative drainage volume, time to drain removal, pain scores (VAS at 24 h), perioperative complications, stress markers (hemoglobin, C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, interleukin-6, creatinine), and cure rates, were analyzed among the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics among the three groups. The PNA group demonstrated significantly shorter operative time, hospital stay, earlier drain removal, and lower 24-h VAS scores compared with the PCNL and LRD groups (P < 0.05), indicating advantages in minimal invasiveness and rapid recovery. The LRD group achieved the highest cure rate (93.33%) with no recurrence. The PCNL group showed a favorable balance between efficacy and safety. The recurrence rate in the PNA group was 6.67%. Follow-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months showed progressive cyst reduction and resolution in all groups, with more stable outcomes observed in the LRD and PCNL groups. The incidence of postoperative complications differed significantly among the three groups (P = 0.046), with the lowest rate in the PNA group (3.33%) and slightly higher in the LRD group (6.67%). Postoperative stress marker changes were smallest in the PNA group, with statistically significant intergroup differences.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All three minimally invasive approaches are safe and effective for the treatment of simple renal cysts. LRD offers the most definitive results with thorough cyst wall excision, making it suitable for larger or anatomically complex cysts. PCNL achieves a favorable balance between efficacy and minimally invasiveness and is appropriate for most posterior renal cysts. PNA is the least invasive, with the fastest recovery, and is more suitable for elderly patients or those with significant comorbidities. Surgical strategy should be individualized based on cyst characteristics and patient factors to optimize outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":22174,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-025-12235-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of three minimally invasive surgical approaches-percutaneous aspiration and sclerotherapy (PNA), laparoscopic retroperitoneal decortication (LRD), and percutaneous nephroscopic decortication (PCNL)-in the treatment of simple renal cysts, and to explore the optimal surgical strategy.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 90 patients with simple renal cysts treated at our institution between December 2021 and December 2023. Patients were divided into three groups based on the surgical approach received: PNA group, LRD group, and PCNL group, with 30 patients in each. Baseline characteristics (sex, age, cyst location, and size) were collected and compared. Clinical outcomes, including operative time, hospital stay, postoperative drainage volume, time to drain removal, pain scores (VAS at 24 h), perioperative complications, stress markers (hemoglobin, C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, interleukin-6, creatinine), and cure rates, were analyzed among the groups.

Results: There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics among the three groups. The PNA group demonstrated significantly shorter operative time, hospital stay, earlier drain removal, and lower 24-h VAS scores compared with the PCNL and LRD groups (P < 0.05), indicating advantages in minimal invasiveness and rapid recovery. The LRD group achieved the highest cure rate (93.33%) with no recurrence. The PCNL group showed a favorable balance between efficacy and safety. The recurrence rate in the PNA group was 6.67%. Follow-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months showed progressive cyst reduction and resolution in all groups, with more stable outcomes observed in the LRD and PCNL groups. The incidence of postoperative complications differed significantly among the three groups (P = 0.046), with the lowest rate in the PNA group (3.33%) and slightly higher in the LRD group (6.67%). Postoperative stress marker changes were smallest in the PNA group, with statistically significant intergroup differences.

Conclusion: All three minimally invasive approaches are safe and effective for the treatment of simple renal cysts. LRD offers the most definitive results with thorough cyst wall excision, making it suitable for larger or anatomically complex cysts. PCNL achieves a favorable balance between efficacy and minimally invasiveness and is appropriate for most posterior renal cysts. PNA is the least invasive, with the fastest recovery, and is more suitable for elderly patients or those with significant comorbidities. Surgical strategy should be individualized based on cyst characteristics and patient factors to optimize outcomes.

三种微创手术入路治疗单纯性肾囊肿的临床疗效比较分析。
目的:比较经皮穿刺硬化治疗(PNA)、腹腔镜腹膜后去皮术(LRD)和经皮肾镜去皮术(PCNL)三种微创手术方式治疗单纯性肾囊肿的临床疗效和安全性,探讨最佳手术策略。方法:对我院2021年12月至2023年12月收治的90例单纯性肾囊肿患者进行回顾性分析。根据手术入路将患者分为PNA组、LRD组和PCNL组,每组30例。收集并比较基线特征(性别、年龄、囊肿位置和大小)。分析两组患者的临床结果,包括手术时间、住院时间、术后引流量、引流时间、疼痛评分(24 h VAS)、围手术期并发症、应激指标(血红蛋白、c反应蛋白、降钙素原、白细胞介素-6、肌酐)和治愈率。结果:三组患者基线特征差异无统计学意义。与PCNL组和LRD组相比,PNA组手术时间短、住院时间短、引流时间早、24小时VAS评分低(P)。结论:三种微创入路治疗单纯性肾囊肿均安全有效。LRD提供最明确的结果,彻底切除囊肿壁,使其适用于较大或解剖复杂的囊肿。PCNL在疗效和微创性之间取得了良好的平衡,适用于大多数后路肾囊肿。PNA侵入性最小,恢复最快,更适合老年患者或有明显合并症的患者。手术策略应根据囊肿特征和患者因素个性化,以优化结果。
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
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
12.90%
发文量
890
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Uniquely positioned at the interface between various medical and surgical disciplines, Surgical Endoscopy serves as a focal point for the international surgical community to exchange information on practice, theory, and research. Topics covered in the journal include: -Surgical aspects of: Interventional endoscopy, Ultrasound, Other techniques in the fields of gastroenterology, obstetrics, gynecology, and urology, -Gastroenterologic surgery -Thoracic surgery -Traumatic surgery -Orthopedic surgery -Pediatric surgery
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信