Camean JJ, Chemi J, Diaz-Couselo FA, Villalba Bachur RF, Jaunarena JH, Villoldo GM

Language: English
References: 19
Page: 1-11
PDF size: 459.43 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) has emerged as the preferred treatment for renal tumors, aiming to balance oncological outcomes and renal function preservation. Partial nephrectomy (PN) has shown comparable cancer-specific survival rates to radical nephrectomy (RN). Notably, postoperative renal damage is associated with both ischemia time and parenchymal loss, emphasizing the importance of preserving renal function during tumor resection. The R.E.N.A.L. Nephrometry Score (RNS), has enhanced the quantification of renal tumor characteristics and improved standardization, guiding surgical decisions. This study aims to describe different hilum approaches based on RNS during laparoscopic PN and analyze their impact on surgical time, intraoperative bleeding, and functional outcomes.
Methods: a retrospective analysis of 90 laparoscopic partial nephrectomy cases was conducted. Surgical time, estimated blood loss (EBL), renal hilum approach (including hilum dissection with renal artery clamping [HD&RAC], hilum dissection without renal artery clamping [HD&noRAC], and no hilum dissection with no renal artery clamping [noHD&noRAC), complication rates and RNS-guided complexity (low: RNS ‹ 7, intermediate: RNS 7-9, high: RNS › 9) were assessed. The choice of hilum approach and abdominal access was determined by the physician based on tumor complexity assessed using RNS.
Results: surgical time varied significantly between hilum approaches, with HD&RAC being the longest (196min), followed by HD&noRAC (147min) and noHD&noRAC (130min). The mean surgical time was statistically significantly different between HD&RAC and HD&noRAC (p-value = 0.0005) and between HD&RAC and noHD&noRAC (p-value = 0.0001). Intraoperative bleeding was higher in the HD&RAC approach than the noHD&noRAC approach (p-value = 0.039). Pre- and post-surgery glomerular filtration rates did not significantly differ by hilum approach (p= 0.7255) or complexity of the renal mass (p= 0.5633). No intraoperative complications were reported. However, three patients with high RNS experienced postoperative urinary fistulas.
Conclusion: the choice of renal hilum approach significantly impacts surgical time and intraoperative bleeding during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Using RNS to guide the approach selection allows for optimal surgical outcomes without compromising glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Further research is needed to validate these findings in larger, multicenter studies and assess long-term outcomes associated with different hilum approaches in laparoscopic PN

REFERENCES

1. Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, DybaT, Randi G, Bettio M, et al. Cancer incidenceand mortality patterns in Europe: Estimatesfor 40 countries and 25 major cancers in 2018.European Journal of Cancer (Oxford, England:1990). 2018;103: 356–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2018.07.005.

2. Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Daignault S,Hollenbeck BK. Rising incidence of smallrenal masses: a need to reassess treatmenteffect. Journal of the National Cancer Institute.2006;98(18): 1331–1334. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djj362.

3. Levi F, Ferlay J, Galeone C, Lucchini F, NegriE, Boyle P, et al. The changing pattern of kidneycancer incidence and mortality in Europe. BJUinternational. 2008;101(8): 949–958. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07451.x.

4. Mir MC, Derweesh IH, Autorino R. Reply to JaeHeon Kim and Benjamin I. Chung’s Letter to theEditor re: Maria Carmen Mir, Ithaar Derweesh,Francesco Porpiglia, Homayoun Zargar,Alexandre Mottrie, Riccardo Autorino. PartialNephrectomy Versus Radical Nephrectomy forClinical T1b and T2 Renal Tumors: A SystematicReview and Meta-analysis of ComparativeStudies. Eur Urol 2017;71:606-17. EuropeanUrology. 2017;72(5): e129–e130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.05.010.

5. Marchioni M, Preisser F, Bandini M, NazzaniS, Tian Z, Kapoor A, et al. Comparison ofPartial Versus Radical Nephrectomy Effecton Other-cause Mortality, Cancer-specificMortality, and 30-day Mortality in PatientsOlder Than 75 Years. European Urology Focus.2019;5(3): 467–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.01.007.

6. MacLennan S, Imamura M, Lapitan MC,Omar MI, Lam TBL, Hilvano-Cabungcal AM,et al. Systematic review of perioperative andquality-of-life outcomes following surgicalmanagement of localised renal cancer. EuropeanUrology. 2012;62(6): 1097–1117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.07.028.

7. Kunath F, Schmidt S, Krabbe LM, Miernik A,Dahm P, Cleves A, et al. Partial nephrectomyversus radical nephrectomy for clinical localisedrenal masses. The Cochrane Database of SystematicReviews. 2017;5(5): CD012045. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012045.pub2.

8. Huang WC, Levey AS, Serio AM, Snyder M,Vickers AJ, Raj GV, et al. Chronic kidney diseaseafter nephrectomy in patients with renal corticaltumours: a retrospective cohort study. TheLancet. Oncology. 2006;7(9): 735–740. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70803-8.

9. Kutikov, A, Smaldone, Marc C. Small RenalMass, An Issue of Urologic Clinics.. 1st edn2017. https://shop.elsevier.com/books/small-renal-mass-an-issue-of-urologic-clinics/kutikov/978-0-323-52864-1 [Accessed 16thJanuary 2026].

10. Daneshmand S, Chan KG. GenitourinaryCancers. Springer; 2018.

11. Lee RA, Strauss D, Kutikov A. Role ofminimally invasive partial nephrectomy inthe management of renal mass. TranslationalAndrology and Urology. 2020;9(6): 3140–3148.https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2019.12.24.

12. Volpe A, Blute ML, Ficarra V, Gill IS, Kutikov A,Porpiglia F, et al. Renal Ischemia and FunctionAfter Partial Nephrectomy: A CollaborativeReview of the Literature. European Urology.2015;68(1): 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.025.

13. Hung AJ, Cai J, Simmons MN, Gill IS.“Trifecta” in Partial Nephrectomy. The Journalof Urology. 2013; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.042.

14. Kutikov A, Uzzo RG. The R.E.N.A.L.nephrometry score: a comprehensivestandardized system for quantitating renaltumor size, location and depth. The Journal ofUrology. 2009;182(3): 844–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.035.

15. Roussel E, Capitanio U, Kutikov A, OosterwijkE, Pedrosa I, Rowe SP, et al. Novel ImagingMethods for Renal Mass Characterization:A Collaborative Review. European Urology.2022;81(5): 476–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2022.01.040.

16. Thompson RH, Boorjian SA, Lohse CM,Leibovich BC, Kwon ED, Cheville JC, et al.Radical nephrectomy for pT1a renal massesmay be associated with decreased overallsurvival compared with partial nephrectomy.The Journal of Urology. 2008;179(2): 468–471;discussion 472-473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.077.

17. Malcolm JB, Bagrodia A, Derweesh IH,Mehrazin R, Diblasio CJ, Wake RW, etal. Comparison of rates and risk factorsfor developing chronic renal insufficiency,proteinuria and metabolic acidosis after radicalor partial nephrectomy. BJU international.2009;104(4): 476–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08376.x.

18. Kopp RP, Mehrazin R, Palazzi K, BazziWM, Patterson AL, Derweesh IH. Factorsaffecting renal function after open partialnephrectomy-a comparison of clampless andclamped warm ischemic technique. Urology.2012;80(4): 865–870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.04.079.

19. Ramani AP, Desai MM, Steinberg AP, Ng CS,Abreu SC, Kaouk JH, et al. Complications oflaparoscopic partial nephrectomy in 200 cases. TheJournal of Urology. 2005;173(1): 42–47. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000147177.20458.73.