Search

Purpose: To compare the outcomes of PN to those of RN in very elderly patients treated for clinically localized renal tumor., Patients and Methods: A purpose-built multi-institutional international database (RESURGE project) was used for this retrospective analysis. Patients over 75 years old and surgically treated for a suspicious of localized renal with either PN or RN were included in this database. Surgical, renal function and oncological outcomes were analyzed. Propensity scores for the predicted probability to receive PN in each patient were estimated by logistic regression models. Cox proportional hazard models were estimated to determine the relative change in hazard associated with PN vs RN on overall mortality (OM), cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other-cause mortality (OCM)., Results: A total of 613 patients who underwent RN were successfully matched with 613 controls who underwent PN. Higher overall complication rate was recorded in the PN group (33% vs 25%; p = 0.01). Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 35 months (interquartile range [IQR] 13-63 months). There was a significant difference between RN and PN in median decline of eGFR (39% vs 17%; p < 0.01). PN was not correlated with OM (HR = 0.71; p = 0.56), OCM (HR = 0.74; p = 0.5), and showed a protective trend for CSM (HR = 0.19; p = 0.05). PN was found to be a protective factor for surgical CKD (HR = 0.28; p < 0.01) and worsening of eGFR in patients with baseline CKD. Retrospective design represents a limitation of this analysis., Conclusions: Adoption of PN in very elderly patients with localized renal tumor does not compromise oncological outcomes, and it allows better functional preservation at mid-term (3-year) follow-up, relative to RN. Whether this functional benefit translates into a survival benefit remains to be determined.

Objective: To compare the outcomes of robotic radical nephrectomy (RRN) to those of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) for large renal masses., Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of RRN and LRN cases performed for large (≥ cT2) renal masses from 2004 to 2017 and collected in the multi-institutional international database (ROSULA: RObotic SUrgery for LArge renal masses). Peri-operative, functional, and oncologic outcomes were compared between each approach. Descriptive analyses were performed and presented as medians with interquartile ranges. Inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted multivariable analyses were used to identify predictors of peri-operative complications. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression models were used to assess survival outcomes., Results: A total of 941 patients (RRN = 404, LRN = 537) were identified. There was no difference in terms of gender, age, and clinical tumor size. Over the study period, RRN had an annual increase of 11.75% (95% CI [7.34, 17.01] p < 0.001) and LRN had an annual decline of 5.39% (95% CI [-6.94, -3.86] p < 0.001). Patients undergoing RRN had higher BMI (27.6 [IQR 24.8-31.1] vs. 26.5 [24.1-30.0] kg/m 2 , p < 0.01). Operative duration was longer for RRN (185.0 [150.0-237.2] vs. 126 [90.8-180.0] min, p < 0.001). Length of stay was shorter for RRN (3.0 [2.0-4.0] vs. 5.0 [4.0-7.0] days, p < 0.001). RRN cases presented more advanced disease (higher pathologic staging [pT3-4 52.5 vs. 24.2%, p < 0.001], histologic grade [high grade 49.3 vs. 30.4%, p < 0.001], and rate of nodal disease [pN1 5.4 vs. 1.9%, p < 0.01]). Surgical approach did not represent an independent risk factor for peri-operative complications (OR 1.81 95% CI [0.97-3.39], adjusted p = 0.2). The main study limitation is the retrospective design., Conclusions: This study represents the largest known multi-center comparison between RRN and LRN. The two procedures seem to offer similar peri-operative outcomes. Notably, RRN has been increasingly utilized, especially in the setting of more advanced and surgically challenging disease without increasing the risk of peri-operative complications.

Background: While partial nephrectomy (PN) represents the standard surgical management for cT1 renal masses, its role for cT2 tumors is controversial. Robot-assisted PN (RAPN) is being increasingly implemented worldwide., Objective: To analyze perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of RAPN for cT2 tumors., Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective analysis of a large multicenter, multinational dataset of patients with nonmetastatic cT2 masses treated with robotic surgery (ROSULA: RObotic SUrgery for LArge renal mass)., Intervention: Robotic-assisted PN., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Patients' demographics, lesion characteristics, perioperative variables, renal functional data, pathology, and oncological data were analyzed. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses assessed the relationships with the risk of intra-/postoperative complications, recurrence, and survival., Results and Limitations: A total of 298 patients were analyzed. Median tumor size was 7.6 (7-8.5) cm. Median RENAL score was 9 (8-10). Median ischemia time was 25 (20-32) min. Median estimated blood loss was 150 (100-300) ml. Sixteen patients had intraoperative complications (5.4%), whereas 66 (22%) had postoperative complications (5% were Clavien grade ≥3). Multivariable analysis revealed that a lower RENAL score (odds ratio [OR] 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.65, p=0.02) and pathological pT2 stage (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.12-0.86, p=0.001) were protective against postoperative complications. A total of 243 lesions (82%) were malignant. Twenty patients (8%) had positive surgical margins. Ten deaths and 25 recurrences/metastases occurred at a median follow-up of 12 (5-35) mo. At univariable analysis, higher pT stage was predictive of a likelihood of recurrences/metastases (p=0.048). While there was a significant deterioration of renal function at discharge, this remained stable over time at 1-yr follow-up. The main limitation of this study is its retrospective design., Conclusions: RAPN in the setting of select cT2 renal masses can safely be performed with acceptable outcomes. Further studies are warranted to corroborate our findings and to better define the role of robotic nephron sparing for this challenging indication., Patient Summary: This report shows that robotic surgery can be used for safe removal of a large renal tumor in a minimally invasive fashion, maximizing preservation of renal function, and without compromising cancer control., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Purpose: To validate and compare the values of "MIC" and "trifecta" as predictors of operated kidney functional preservation in a multi-institutional cohort of patients undergoing minimally invasive PN., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed records of consecutive cases of minimally invasive PN performed for cT1 renal masses in 4 centers from 2009 to 2013. Inclusion criteria consisted of availability of a renal scan obtained within 2 weeks prior to surgery and follow-up renal scan 3-6 months after the surgery. The primary endpoint of the study was to compare the degree of ipsilateral renal function preservation assessed by MAG3 renal scan in relation to achievement of MIC and trifecta., Results: Total of 351 patients met our inclusion criteria. The rates of trifecta achievement for cT1a and cT1b tumors were 78.9 and 60.6 %, respectively. The rate of MIC achievement for cT1a tumors and cT1b tumors was 60.3 and 31.7 %, respectively. On multivariable linear regression model, only the degree of tumor complexity assessed by R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score [coefficient B -1.8 (-2.7, -0.9); p < 0.0001] and the achievement of trifecta [coefficient B 6.1 (2.4,9.8); p = 0.014] or MIC (coefficient B 7.2 (3.8,0.6); p < 0.0001) were significant clinical factors predicting ipsilateral split function preservation., Conclusions: Achievement of both MIC and "trifecta" is associated with higher proportion of split renal function preservation for cT1 tumors after minimally invasive PN. Thus, these outcome measures can be regarded not only as markers of surgical quality, but also as reliable surrogates for predicting functional outcome in the operated kidney.