Hosam Serag, Ayman Agag, Naufal Naushad, Ankur Mukherjee, Maria Harrington-Vogt, Abdalla Ali Deb
{"title":"Perioperative, Functional, and Oncologic Outcomes of On-Clamp Versus Off-Clamp Partial Nephrectomy: An Updated Meta-analysis of 9027 Patients.","authors":"Hosam Serag, Ayman Agag, Naufal Naushad, Ankur Mukherjee, Maria Harrington-Vogt, Abdalla Ali Deb","doi":"10.5152/tud.2023.22207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to determine the comparative efficacy and safety between on-clamp and off-clamp partial nephrectomy in patients with renal masses.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This systematic review was pre-registered on The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42022339127). PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. A manual search was also conducted to avoid missing relevant studies. All observational and experimental studies reporting the comparative efficacy and/or safety of on-clamp versus off-clamp partial nephrectomy were included. Outcomes were divided into 3 categories: perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the The Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) and revised Cochrane ROB-II tool for nonrandomized and randomized studies, respectively. Fixed- and random-effect models were implemented to pool the mean difference and log odds ratio of continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine if the effect size was driven by a single study, and Egger's regression test was used to assess publication bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-two studies were meta-analyzed. The on-clamping method showed greater benefit when compared to the off-clamping technique in terms of perioperative (estimated blood loss and blood transfusion), functional (estimated glomerular filtration rate), and oncologic outcomes (tumor resection time). However, it is associated with higher risk for complications. Most studies were of moderate-to-serious risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>On-clamping shows superiority in terms of estimated blood loss, blood transfusion, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and tumor resection time. However, it is associated with increased risk of complications. The selection of the technique should be tailored per individual case based on their comorbidities and preoperative risk profile.</p>","PeriodicalId":101337,"journal":{"name":"Urology research & practice","volume":"49 2","pages":"79-95"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10192728/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology research & practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2023.22207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the comparative efficacy and safety between on-clamp and off-clamp partial nephrectomy in patients with renal masses.
Materials and methods: This systematic review was pre-registered on The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42022339127). PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. A manual search was also conducted to avoid missing relevant studies. All observational and experimental studies reporting the comparative efficacy and/or safety of on-clamp versus off-clamp partial nephrectomy were included. Outcomes were divided into 3 categories: perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the The Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) and revised Cochrane ROB-II tool for nonrandomized and randomized studies, respectively. Fixed- and random-effect models were implemented to pool the mean difference and log odds ratio of continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine if the effect size was driven by a single study, and Egger's regression test was used to assess publication bias.
Results: Forty-two studies were meta-analyzed. The on-clamping method showed greater benefit when compared to the off-clamping technique in terms of perioperative (estimated blood loss and blood transfusion), functional (estimated glomerular filtration rate), and oncologic outcomes (tumor resection time). However, it is associated with higher risk for complications. Most studies were of moderate-to-serious risk of bias.
Conclusion: On-clamping shows superiority in terms of estimated blood loss, blood transfusion, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and tumor resection time. However, it is associated with increased risk of complications. The selection of the technique should be tailored per individual case based on their comorbidities and preoperative risk profile.
目的:本研究的目的是比较夹闭式和非夹闭式肾部分切除术治疗肾肿块的疗效和安全性。材料和方法:该系统综述已在国际前瞻性系统综述登记册(PROSPERO)(CRD42022339127)上预先登记。检索PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science。还进行了人工搜索,以避免遗漏相关研究。所有观察和实验研究报告了夹内和夹外部分肾切除术的比较疗效和/或安全性。结果分为3类:围手术期、功能性和肿瘤学结果。使用非随机干预研究中的偏倚风险(ROBINS-I)和非随机和随机研究的修订版Cochrane ROB-II工具分别评估偏倚风险。采用固定效应和随机效应模型,分别汇总连续结果和二分结果的平均差和对数优势比。进行了一项遗漏敏感性分析,以确定影响大小是否由单一研究驱动,并使用Egger回归检验来评估发表偏倚。结果:对42项研究进行了荟萃分析。在围手术期(估计的失血量和输血量)、功能(估计的肾小球滤过率)和肿瘤学结果(肿瘤切除时间)方面,与非夹紧技术相比,夹紧方法显示出更大的益处。然而,它与更高的并发症风险相关。大多数研究都有中度到严重的偏倚风险。结论:在估计出血量、输血量、估计肾小球滤过率和肿瘤切除时间方面,On clamp具有优越性。然而,它与并发症的风险增加有关。该技术的选择应根据其合并症和术前风险状况根据个别病例进行调整。