Cargando…

Outcomes of partial nephrectomy in patients who meet percutaneous ablation criteria

INTRODUCTION: Treatment options for small renal masses include partial nephrectomy (PN), ablation and active surveillance. We sought to compare patients who met the criteria for percutaneous ablation but underwent robotic PN to the rest of our robotic PN cohort. This was done in order to detect any...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Harris, Kelly T., Ball, Mark W., Gorin, Michael A., Allaf, Mohamad E., Pierorazio, Phillip M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Polish Urological Association 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4526608/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26251725
http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2015.528
_version_ 1782384438282289152
author Harris, Kelly T.
Ball, Mark W.
Gorin, Michael A.
Allaf, Mohamad E.
Pierorazio, Phillip M.
author_facet Harris, Kelly T.
Ball, Mark W.
Gorin, Michael A.
Allaf, Mohamad E.
Pierorazio, Phillip M.
author_sort Harris, Kelly T.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Treatment options for small renal masses include partial nephrectomy (PN), ablation and active surveillance. We sought to compare patients who met the criteria for percutaneous ablation but underwent robotic PN to the rest of our robotic PN cohort. This was done in order to detect any safety concerns and to define any risk factors that might contraindicate the use of robotic PN, an oncologically superior procedure, in patients who qualify for ablation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Our departmental renal mass registry was queried for patients who underwent robotic PN but also met criteria for percutaneous ablation. These were compared to the rest of the robotic PN cohort. Demographics, perioperative characteristics and recurrence data were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 321 robotic PNs were identified. Of these, 26 (8.1%) met ablation criteria. Among patient characteristics, age and BMI were similar in both groups. Among operative characteristics, estimated blood loss (EBL) and operative time were similar. Warm ischemia time was significantly less for patients who met ablation criteria (14 vs. 17 minutes, p = 0.002). Mean tumor size was smaller for patients who met ablation criteria (2.3 vs. 2.7 cm, p = 0.012). Among postoperative characteristics, complications were similar overall and when present, stratified by Clavien grade. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic PN is a safe, effective treatment option for small renal masses, even in patients who meet ablation criteria. There were no recurrences in our cohort and the majority of complications were Clavien grade 1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4526608
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Polish Urological Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45266082015-08-06 Outcomes of partial nephrectomy in patients who meet percutaneous ablation criteria Harris, Kelly T. Ball, Mark W. Gorin, Michael A. Allaf, Mohamad E. Pierorazio, Phillip M. Cent European J Urol Original Paper INTRODUCTION: Treatment options for small renal masses include partial nephrectomy (PN), ablation and active surveillance. We sought to compare patients who met the criteria for percutaneous ablation but underwent robotic PN to the rest of our robotic PN cohort. This was done in order to detect any safety concerns and to define any risk factors that might contraindicate the use of robotic PN, an oncologically superior procedure, in patients who qualify for ablation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Our departmental renal mass registry was queried for patients who underwent robotic PN but also met criteria for percutaneous ablation. These were compared to the rest of the robotic PN cohort. Demographics, perioperative characteristics and recurrence data were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 321 robotic PNs were identified. Of these, 26 (8.1%) met ablation criteria. Among patient characteristics, age and BMI were similar in both groups. Among operative characteristics, estimated blood loss (EBL) and operative time were similar. Warm ischemia time was significantly less for patients who met ablation criteria (14 vs. 17 minutes, p = 0.002). Mean tumor size was smaller for patients who met ablation criteria (2.3 vs. 2.7 cm, p = 0.012). Among postoperative characteristics, complications were similar overall and when present, stratified by Clavien grade. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic PN is a safe, effective treatment option for small renal masses, even in patients who meet ablation criteria. There were no recurrences in our cohort and the majority of complications were Clavien grade 1. Polish Urological Association 2015-02-27 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4526608/ /pubmed/26251725 http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2015.528 Text en Copyright by Polish Urological Association http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Harris, Kelly T.
Ball, Mark W.
Gorin, Michael A.
Allaf, Mohamad E.
Pierorazio, Phillip M.
Outcomes of partial nephrectomy in patients who meet percutaneous ablation criteria
title Outcomes of partial nephrectomy in patients who meet percutaneous ablation criteria
title_full Outcomes of partial nephrectomy in patients who meet percutaneous ablation criteria
title_fullStr Outcomes of partial nephrectomy in patients who meet percutaneous ablation criteria
title_full_unstemmed Outcomes of partial nephrectomy in patients who meet percutaneous ablation criteria
title_short Outcomes of partial nephrectomy in patients who meet percutaneous ablation criteria
title_sort outcomes of partial nephrectomy in patients who meet percutaneous ablation criteria
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4526608/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26251725
http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2015.528
work_keys_str_mv AT harriskellyt outcomesofpartialnephrectomyinpatientswhomeetpercutaneousablationcriteria
AT ballmarkw outcomesofpartialnephrectomyinpatientswhomeetpercutaneousablationcriteria
AT gorinmichaela outcomesofpartialnephrectomyinpatientswhomeetpercutaneousablationcriteria
AT allafmohamade outcomesofpartialnephrectomyinpatientswhomeetpercutaneousablationcriteria
AT pieroraziophillipm outcomesofpartialnephrectomyinpatientswhomeetpercutaneousablationcriteria