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?

IF 0.6 4区 医学 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Müslüm Ergün, Süleyman Sağır, Osman Akyüz, Ramazan Yavuz Akman
{"title":"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?","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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