Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Partial Nephrectomy in Treating Small Renal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has emerged as an alternative treatment to surgical partial nephrectomy (PN) in the treatment of small renal tumors (SRTs). But its safety and oncological efficacy are still controversial. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the peritoperative and oncological outcomes of RFA and PN in the treatment of SRTs. Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched to identify eligible studies that compared the RFA and PN in the treatment of SRTs. Twelve retrospective studies that compared RFA with PN in the treatment of SRTs met our selection criterion and were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results indicated that the local recurrence rate (4.14% vs 4.10%, RR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.68, 2.07, P = 0.550) and distant metastases rate (2.76% vs 1.89%, RR: 1.31, 95% CI: 0.70, 2.46, P = 0.686) were not significantly different between the RFA group and the PN group. In terms of perioperative outcomes, RFA was associated with shorter length of stay (LOS) (WMD: −2.02 days, 95% CI: −2.77, −1.27, P < 0.001), lower eGFR decline after treatment (WMD: −3.90, 95% CI: −6.660, −1.140, P = 0.006). However, the overall perioperative complication rate (7.5% vs 6.2%, RR:1.10, 95% CI: 0.64, 1.87, P = 0.740) and the major complication rate (3.7% vs 4.4%, RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.43, 1.60, P = 0.579) were both similar between RFA and PN groups. Compared with PN, RFA achieves an equal oncological outcome for SRTs with similar local recurrence rate and distant metastases rate. Additionally, RFA is associated with a similar perioperative complication rate, lower decline of eGFR, and shorter LOS. Therefore, RFA is an effective option in the treatment of SRTs for selected patients.