Utilizing the R.E.N.A.L Nephrometry Score to predict the Surgical Technique and Peri-operative Outcomes of Renal Masses

S. Muter, Mohammed Khalid Khudhair, Kanaan Mahdi Abbas, Noorulhuda Al-Ani
{"title":"Utilizing the R.E.N.A.L Nephrometry Score to predict the Surgical Technique and Peri-operative Outcomes of Renal Masses","authors":"S. Muter, Mohammed Khalid Khudhair, Kanaan Mahdi Abbas, Noorulhuda Al-Ani","doi":"10.47723/kcmj.v19i2.967","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: despite the rise in the incidence of renal cell carcinoma attributed to availability of medical imaging, a considerable decline in mortality is an association. Morbidity-wise, the shift from radical nephrectomy to partial nephrectomy is the trend for now. Multiple scoring systems have been introduced over the past decades to help surgeons choose between radical and partial nephrectomy. One commonly used system is the RENAL nephrometry score that was first introduced by Kutikov and Uzzo in 2009.\nObjective: to evaluate the role of RENAL nephrometry scoring system in predicting the surgical technique to use to resect renal masses and associated perioperative outcomes.\nSubjects and methods: between December 2018 and December 2020, we prospectively recruited 88 patients with renal masses. Nephrometry scores of all patients were calculated by an experienced radiologist and a decision then was made by blinded treating surgeons to proceed to radical or partial nephrectomy. Patients then sub-grouped into low, moderate, and high nephrometry scores, and into radical and partial nephrectomy.  Pre-, intra-, and post-operative data were collected and analyzed.\nResults: Eighty-three patients completed the study. Thirty-three had undergone radical nephrectomy and 50 had partial nephrectomy. Total nephrometry score differed significantly between the two groups. Mass radius and nearness to the renal hilum were the only influential components. The only complication that differed significantly among the three nephrometry groups was the estimated blood loss, being highest in the low complexity group. No significant difference was found in the total operation time, ischemia time, renal function and hospital stay. Major complications were seen only in the high complexity group.\nConclusion: Total nephrometry score, mass radius and nearness to renal hilum can be regarded as good and reproducible predictors of type of surgery required to treat renal masses. They also can predict the perioperative complication to a good extent.","PeriodicalId":34748,"journal":{"name":"mjlh klyh Tb lkndy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"mjlh klyh Tb lkndy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47723/kcmj.v19i2.967","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: despite the rise in the incidence of renal cell carcinoma attributed to availability of medical imaging, a considerable decline in mortality is an association. Morbidity-wise, the shift from radical nephrectomy to partial nephrectomy is the trend for now. Multiple scoring systems have been introduced over the past decades to help surgeons choose between radical and partial nephrectomy. One commonly used system is the RENAL nephrometry score that was first introduced by Kutikov and Uzzo in 2009. Objective: to evaluate the role of RENAL nephrometry scoring system in predicting the surgical technique to use to resect renal masses and associated perioperative outcomes. Subjects and methods: between December 2018 and December 2020, we prospectively recruited 88 patients with renal masses. Nephrometry scores of all patients were calculated by an experienced radiologist and a decision then was made by blinded treating surgeons to proceed to radical or partial nephrectomy. Patients then sub-grouped into low, moderate, and high nephrometry scores, and into radical and partial nephrectomy.  Pre-, intra-, and post-operative data were collected and analyzed. Results: Eighty-three patients completed the study. Thirty-three had undergone radical nephrectomy and 50 had partial nephrectomy. Total nephrometry score differed significantly between the two groups. Mass radius and nearness to the renal hilum were the only influential components. The only complication that differed significantly among the three nephrometry groups was the estimated blood loss, being highest in the low complexity group. No significant difference was found in the total operation time, ischemia time, renal function and hospital stay. Major complications were seen only in the high complexity group. Conclusion: Total nephrometry score, mass radius and nearness to renal hilum can be regarded as good and reproducible predictors of type of surgery required to treat renal masses. They also can predict the perioperative complication to a good extent.
应用R.E.N.A.L肾测量评分预测肾肿块手术技术及围手术期预后
背景:尽管肾细胞癌的发病率上升归因于医学影像的可用性,但死亡率显著下降是一个关联。在发病率方面,从根治性肾切除术向部分肾切除术的转变是目前的趋势。在过去的几十年里,多种评分系统被引入,以帮助外科医生在完全切除和部分切除之间做出选择。一个常用的系统是肾肾测量评分,由Kutikov和Uzzo于2009年首次引入。目的:评价肾肾测量评分系统在预测肾肿块切除手术技术及围手术期预后中的作用。对象与方法:2018年12月至2020年12月,前瞻性招募88例肾脏肿块患者。所有患者的肾测量评分由经验丰富的放射科医生计算,然后由盲法治疗外科医生决定进行完全或部分肾切除术。然后将患者分为低、中、高肾测量评分,以及完全和部分肾切除术。收集并分析术前、术中、术后资料。结果:83例患者完成了研究。33例行根治性肾切除术,50例行部分肾切除术。两组总肾测量评分差异有统计学意义。肿块半径和靠近肾门是唯一的影响因素。三个肾测量组之间唯一显著不同的并发症是估计失血量,在低复杂性组中最高。两组总手术时间、缺血时间、肾功能及住院时间差异无统计学意义。主要并发症仅见于高复杂性组。结论:全肾测量评分、肿块半径和靠近肾门的程度可被视为治疗肾肿块所需手术类型的良好且可重复性的预测指标。并能较好地预测围手术期并发症。
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
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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