Outcome of kidney function after ischaemic and zero-ischaemic laparoscopic and open nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell cancer.
Aged
Carcinoma, Renal Cell
/ surgery
Female
Glomerular Filtration Rate
Humans
Ischemia
/ prevention & control
Kidney
/ blood supply
Kidney Neoplasms
/ surgery
Laparoscopy
/ methods
Laparotomy
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Nephrectomy
/ methods
Nephrons
/ physiopathology
Organ Sparing Treatments
/ methods
Retrospective Studies
Warm Ischemia
/ adverse effects
AKI
Acute kidney injury
CKD
Chronic kidney disease
Ischaemia time
Kidney function
Nephron-sparing surgery
Partial nephrectomy
Zero ischaemia
Journal
BMC nephrology
ISSN: 1471-2369
Titre abrégé: BMC Nephrol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967793
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 02 2019
04 02 2019
Historique:
received:
27
02
2018
accepted:
16
01
2019
entrez:
6
2
2019
pubmed:
6
2
2019
medline:
8
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) remains gold standard for the treatment of localised renal cell cancer (RCC), even in case of a normal contralateral kidney. Compared to radical nephrectomy, kidney failure and cardiovascular events are less frequent with NSS. However, the effects of different surgical approaches and of zero ischaemia on the postoperative reduction in renal function remain controversial. We aimed to investigate the relative short- and long-term changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) after ischaemic or zero-ischaemic open (ONSS) and laparoscopic NSS (LNSS) for RCC, and to analyse prognostic factors for postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage ≥3. Data of 444 patients (211 LNSS, 233 ONSS), including 57 zero-ischaemic cases, were retrospectively analysed. Multiple regression models were used to predict relative changes in renal function. Natural cubic splines were used to demonstrate the association between ischaemia time (IT) and relative changes in renal function. IT was identified as significant risk factor for short-term relative changes in eGFR (ß = - 0.27) and development of AKI (OR, 1.02), but no effect was found on long-term relative changes in eGFR. Natural cubic splines revealed that IT had a greater effect on patients with baseline eGFR categories ≥G3 concerning short-term decrease in renal function and development of AKI. Unlike LNSS, ONSS was significantly associated with short-term decrease in renal function (ß = - 13.48) and development of AKI (OR, 3.87). Tumour diameter was associated with long-term decrease in renal function (ß = - 1.76), whereas baseline eGFR was a prognostic factor for both short- (ß = - 0.20) and long-term (ß = - 0.29) relative changes in eGFR and the development of CKD stage ≥3 (OR, 0.89). IT is a significant risk factor for AKI. The short-term effect of IT is not always linear, and the impact also depends on baseline eGFR. Unlike LNSS, ONSS is associated with the development of AKI. Our findings are helpful for surgical planning, and suggest either the application of a clampless NSS technique or at least the shortest possible IT to reduce the risk of short-time impairment of the renal function, which might prevent AKI, particularly regarding patients with baseline eGFR category ≥G3.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) remains gold standard for the treatment of localised renal cell cancer (RCC), even in case of a normal contralateral kidney. Compared to radical nephrectomy, kidney failure and cardiovascular events are less frequent with NSS. However, the effects of different surgical approaches and of zero ischaemia on the postoperative reduction in renal function remain controversial. We aimed to investigate the relative short- and long-term changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) after ischaemic or zero-ischaemic open (ONSS) and laparoscopic NSS (LNSS) for RCC, and to analyse prognostic factors for postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage ≥3.
METHODS
Data of 444 patients (211 LNSS, 233 ONSS), including 57 zero-ischaemic cases, were retrospectively analysed. Multiple regression models were used to predict relative changes in renal function. Natural cubic splines were used to demonstrate the association between ischaemia time (IT) and relative changes in renal function.
RESULTS
IT was identified as significant risk factor for short-term relative changes in eGFR (ß = - 0.27) and development of AKI (OR, 1.02), but no effect was found on long-term relative changes in eGFR. Natural cubic splines revealed that IT had a greater effect on patients with baseline eGFR categories ≥G3 concerning short-term decrease in renal function and development of AKI. Unlike LNSS, ONSS was significantly associated with short-term decrease in renal function (ß = - 13.48) and development of AKI (OR, 3.87). Tumour diameter was associated with long-term decrease in renal function (ß = - 1.76), whereas baseline eGFR was a prognostic factor for both short- (ß = - 0.20) and long-term (ß = - 0.29) relative changes in eGFR and the development of CKD stage ≥3 (OR, 0.89).
CONCLUSIONS
IT is a significant risk factor for AKI. The short-term effect of IT is not always linear, and the impact also depends on baseline eGFR. Unlike LNSS, ONSS is associated with the development of AKI. Our findings are helpful for surgical planning, and suggest either the application of a clampless NSS technique or at least the shortest possible IT to reduce the risk of short-time impairment of the renal function, which might prevent AKI, particularly regarding patients with baseline eGFR category ≥G3.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30717692
doi: 10.1186/s12882-019-1215-3
pii: 10.1186/s12882-019-1215-3
pmc: PMC6362593
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
40Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
N Engl J Med. 2004 Sep 23;351(13):1296-305
pubmed: 15385656
J Urol. 2017 Oct;198(4):787-794
pubmed: 28400188
J Urol. 2011 Feb;185(2):421-7
pubmed: 21167524
BJU Int. 2015 Apr;115(4):606-12
pubmed: 24913695
J Urol. 2009 Sep;182(3):844-53
pubmed: 19616235
Curr Urol. 2013 Jan;6(3):129-35
pubmed: 24917730
Surg Endosc. 2003 May;17(5):819-24
pubmed: 12584602
J Urol. 2018 Apr;199(4):927-932
pubmed: 29154848
J Urol. 2009 Jan;181(1):55-61; discussion 61-2
pubmed: 19012918
Eur Urol. 2014 Feb;65(2):378-9; discussion 379-80
pubmed: 23921423
Urology. 2016 Jan;87:106-13
pubmed: 26494290
Eur Urol. 2017 Jul;72(1):64-75
pubmed: 27988238
Curr Opin Urol. 2013 Mar;23(2):105-11
pubmed: 23321635
Eur Urol. 2009 Nov;56(5):786-93
pubmed: 19665284
J Urol. 2015 Jun;193(6):1889-98
pubmed: 25637858
J Urol. 2010 Apr;183(4):1317-23
pubmed: 20171688
Eur Urol. 2011 Apr;59(4):543-52
pubmed: 21186077
Eur Urol. 2009 May;55(5):1171-8
pubmed: 19232819
Eur Urol. 2018 Nov;74(5):661-667
pubmed: 30104082
Eur Urol Focus. 2020 Mar 15;6(2):344-353
pubmed: 30309817
J Urol. 2010 Nov;184(5):1867-71
pubmed: 20846677
Eur Urol. 2010 Aug;58(2):293-8
pubmed: 20546991
BJU Int. 2018 Jan;121(1):46-52
pubmed: 28749082
J Endourol. 2016 May;30 Suppl 1:S37-41
pubmed: 26864480
J Urol. 2011 Jan;185(1):43-8
pubmed: 21074205
J Urol. 2015 Sep;194(3):658-63
pubmed: 25818030
Eur Urol. 2014 Feb;65(2):372-7
pubmed: 23850254
Eur Urol. 2012 Dec;62(6):1097-117
pubmed: 22841673
BJU Int. 1999 Sep;84(4):489-94
pubmed: 10468768
J Urol. 2007 Jul;178(1):41-6
pubmed: 17574056
J Urol. 2009 Jan;181(1):48-53; discussion 53-4
pubmed: 19012914
J Urol. 2009 Oct;182(4):1271-9
pubmed: 19683266
BMC Urol. 2014 Dec 17;14:101
pubmed: 25519922
Eur Urol. 2012 Jul;62(1):130-5
pubmed: 22349568
BMC Nephrol. 2014 Nov 19;15:181
pubmed: 25410757
Eur Urol. 2015 Apr;67(4):683-9
pubmed: 25282367
Lancet Oncol. 2006 Sep;7(9):735-40
pubmed: 16945768
BJU Int. 2016 Nov;118(5):692-705
pubmed: 27409986
Eur Urol. 2014 Nov;66(5):884-93
pubmed: 24680360
J Urol. 2016 Jun;195(6):1655-63
pubmed: 26804756
BJU Int. 2009 Aug;104(4):476-81
pubmed: 19220252
Eur Urol. 2016 Apr;69(4):745-752
pubmed: 26525838
J Endourol. 1998 Apr;12(2):95-100
pubmed: 9607433
J Urol. 2004 Dec;172(6 Pt 1):2471-4
pubmed: 15538293
Br J Anaesth. 2016 Jan;116(1):70-6
pubmed: 26675951
J Urol. 2013 May;189(5):1649-55
pubmed: 23201493
Eur Urol. 2015 Dec;68(6):980-92
pubmed: 25911061
Crit Care. 2004 Aug;8(4):R204-12
pubmed: 15312219
Eur Urol. 2010 Oct;58(4):596-601
pubmed: 20554375
Eur Urol. 2012 May;61(5):972-93
pubmed: 22405593
Eur Urol. 2015 May;67(5):913-24
pubmed: 25616710
J Urol. 2012 Jul;188(1):51-7
pubmed: 22591957
PLoS One. 2016 Jan 08;11(1):e0146395
pubmed: 26745147
Eur Urol. 2015 Jul;68(1):61-74
pubmed: 25703575
Am J Kidney Dis. 1997 Jun;29(6):888-96
pubmed: 9186075
J Urol. 2008 Dec;180(6):2363-8; discussion 2368-9
pubmed: 18930264
J Urol. 2010 Feb;183(2):473-9
pubmed: 20006866
Eur Urol. 2010 Sep;58(3):340-5
pubmed: 20825756
Cancer. 2013 Aug 15;119(16):2981-9
pubmed: 23674264
Eur Urol. 2009 Jan;55(1):209-15
pubmed: 18706758
Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2019 Feb;71(1):96-100
pubmed: 30607928
World J Urol. 2015 Dec;33(12):2023-9
pubmed: 25966661
Eur Urol Focus. 2017 Dec;3(6):599-605
pubmed: 28753863