Assessing the Trade-off Between the Safety and Effectiveness of Off-clamp Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for Renal Masses with a High RENAL Score: A Propensity Score-matched Comparison of Perioperative and Functional Outcomes in a Multicenter Analysis.

Complex renal masses Nephrometry score Off-clamp surgery Outcomes Renal function Robotic partial nephrectomy

Journal

European urology focus
ISSN: 2405-4569
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Focus
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101665661

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
30 May 2023
Historique:
received: 13 03 2023
revised: 23 04 2023
accepted: 23 05 2023
medline: 2 6 2023
pubmed: 2 6 2023
entrez: 1 6 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Tumors with a high nephrometry score represent a challenging surgical scenario for which robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) is a primary option in expert hands. To compare perioperative and functional outcomes of off-clamp and on-clamp RPN in patients with renal masses with a high RENAL score (≥9). For this retrospective analysis, an RPN data set including 1604 patients treated at three institutions between 2003 and 2021 was queried for cases with a RENAL score ≥9. We used 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) to select a cohort in which imbalances between the off-clamp and on-clamp groups were minimized. We used χ From an overall cohort of 354 patients (142 on-clamp, 212 off-clamp), a homogeneous PSM cohort of 78 patients in each group was selected (p ≥ 0.17). In the PSM cohort, operative time was significantly shorter in the off-clamp group (p < 0.001). There were no differences between the groups in the rates of severe complications (p = 0.32) and positive surgical margins (p = 0.24). The rate of trifecta achievement was significantly higher in the off-clamp group (83.3% vs 67.9%; p = 0.03). Warm ischemia time >20 min was independently negatively associated with trifecta achievement (odds ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.74). Moreover, the off-clamp group had a significantly higher probability of retaining eGFR ≥45 ml/min over time (3 yr: 95.9% vs 81.6%; p = 0.03); every 1-min increase in warm ischemia time reduced this probability by 1.3%. We found a favorable trade-off between the benefits and risks of off-clamp RPN, with similar perioperative outcomes and a net benefit in terms of trifecta achievement and long-term renal function outcomes in comparison to on-clamp RPN. The complexity of surgery for kidney tumors can be assessed using the RENAL score, which is a measure of the location and size of a kidney tumor. In a multicenter series of patients with tumors with a high RENAL score, we compared outcomes between strategies with (on-clamp) and without (off-clamp) clamping of kidney blood vessels during robot-assisted removal of part of the affected kidney. We found that off-clamp surgery results in better postoperative kidney function.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Tumors with a high nephrometry score represent a challenging surgical scenario for which robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) is a primary option in expert hands.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
To compare perioperative and functional outcomes of off-clamp and on-clamp RPN in patients with renal masses with a high RENAL score (≥9).
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS METHODS
For this retrospective analysis, an RPN data set including 1604 patients treated at three institutions between 2003 and 2021 was queried for cases with a RENAL score ≥9.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS METHODS
We used 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) to select a cohort in which imbalances between the off-clamp and on-clamp groups were minimized. We used χ
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS CONCLUSIONS
From an overall cohort of 354 patients (142 on-clamp, 212 off-clamp), a homogeneous PSM cohort of 78 patients in each group was selected (p ≥ 0.17). In the PSM cohort, operative time was significantly shorter in the off-clamp group (p < 0.001). There were no differences between the groups in the rates of severe complications (p = 0.32) and positive surgical margins (p = 0.24). The rate of trifecta achievement was significantly higher in the off-clamp group (83.3% vs 67.9%; p = 0.03). Warm ischemia time >20 min was independently negatively associated with trifecta achievement (odds ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.74). Moreover, the off-clamp group had a significantly higher probability of retaining eGFR ≥45 ml/min over time (3 yr: 95.9% vs 81.6%; p = 0.03); every 1-min increase in warm ischemia time reduced this probability by 1.3%.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
We found a favorable trade-off between the benefits and risks of off-clamp RPN, with similar perioperative outcomes and a net benefit in terms of trifecta achievement and long-term renal function outcomes in comparison to on-clamp RPN.
PATIENT SUMMARY RESULTS
The complexity of surgery for kidney tumors can be assessed using the RENAL score, which is a measure of the location and size of a kidney tumor. In a multicenter series of patients with tumors with a high RENAL score, we compared outcomes between strategies with (on-clamp) and without (off-clamp) clamping of kidney blood vessels during robot-assisted removal of part of the affected kidney. We found that off-clamp surgery results in better postoperative kidney function.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37263828
pii: S2405-4569(23)00120-7
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2023.05.009
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Gabriele Tuderti (G)

Department of Urology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: gabriele.tuderti@gmail.com.

Riccardo Mastroianni (R)

Department of Urology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.

Umberto Anceschi (U)

Department of Urology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.

Alfredo Maria Bove (AM)

Department of Urology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.

Aldo Brassetti (A)

Department of Urology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.

Mariaconsiglia Ferriero (M)

Department of Urology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.

Leonardo Misuraca (L)

Department of Urology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.

Salvatore Guaglianone (S)

Department of Urology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.

Manuela Costantini (M)

Department of Urology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.

Giulia Torregiani (G)

Department of Urology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.

Ava Saidian (A)

Department of Urology, University of California-San Diego Health System, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Andrea Mari (A)

Department of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.

Rekha Narasimhan (R)

Department of Urology, University of California-San Diego Health System, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Ithaar Derweesh (I)

Department of Urology, University of California-San Diego Health System, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Andrea Minervini (A)

Department of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.

Michele Gallucci (M)

Department of Urology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.

Giuseppe Simone (G)

Department of Urology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.

Classifications MeSH