Journals / Haydarpaşa Numune Medical Journal / 2018 / Cilt: 58 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of Radical and Partial Nephrectomy in Terms of Oncological and Functional Results

Pages
22–27
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The overall survival rate of the RN and PN groups was 69% and 86%, respectively, at postoperative month 80 (95% confidence interval).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: This study is an evaluation of the oncological and functional outcomes of radical nephrectomy (RN) and partial nephrectomy (PN).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: A total of 201 patients with a kidney tumor who underwent RN and PN between January 2009 and July 2016 at the hospital were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The overall survival rate of the RN and PN groups was 69% and 86%, respectively, at postoperative month 80 (95% confidence interval).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Introduction: This study is an evaluation of the oncological and functional outcomes of radical nephrectomy (RN) and partial nephrectomy (PN). Methods: A total of 201 patients with a kidney tumor who underwent RN and PN between January 2009 and July 2016 at the hospital were included in the study. Preoperative, operative, and postoperative follow-up data were recorded prospectively and analyzed retrospectively using the Student’s t-test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Patient survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Results: In all, 79 patients underwent RN and 122 patients underwent PN. In the RN group, open surgery was performed for 38 patients, laparoscopic surgery for 32, and robotic surgery for 9 patients. In the PN group, open surgery was performed for 41, laparoscopic surgery for 10, and robotic surgery for 71 patients. The mean age of the RN and PN groups was 60.5 years and 55.4 years, respectively (p=0.007). The mean operation time was 207.1±51.3 minutes in the RN group and 193.1±56.5 minutes in the PN group (p=0.078). The mean estimated blood loss was 613.4±280.6 mL in the RN group and 274.2±258.6 mL in the PN group (p=0.005). The length of hospital stay was statistically significantly longer in the RN group (p<0.0001). The preoperative mean estimated glomerular filtration rate value of the RN and PN groups was 92.9±29.1 mL/min/1.73m2 and 108.8±31.8 mL/min/1.73m2, respectively, and decreased to 72.6±25 mL/min/1.73m2 and 101.2±32.7 mL/min/1.73m2, respectively, at postoperative month 6 (p<0.0001). The overall survival rate of the RN and PN groups was 69% and 86%, respectively, at postoperative month 80 (95% confidence interval). Discussion and Conclusion: PN is a viable option for tumors that are suitable for nephron-sparing surgery and has comparable functional and oncological results compared with RN.

🔖

Cite This Article

YILDIRIM, Ü., BOYLU, U., BİNDAYI, A., KÜÇÜK, E. V., GÜMÜŞ, E. (2018). Comparison of Radical and Partial Nephrectomy in Terms of Oncological and Functional Results. Haydarpaşa Numune Medical Journal, Cilt: 58 - Sayı: 1, 22–27. https://ajindex.com/articles/196066

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Robson CJ. Radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 1963
  2. 37–42. [CrossRef ] 2. Powles T, Staehler M, Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Canfield SE, Dabestani S, et al. Updated EAU Guidelines for Clear Cell Renal Cancer Patients Who Fail VEGF Targeted Therapy. Eur Urol 2016
  3. 4–6. [CrossRef ] 3. Campbell SC, Novick AC, Belldegrun A, Blute ML, Chow GK, Derweesh IH, et al.
  4. Practice Guidelines Committee of the American Urological Association. Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass. J Urol 2009
  5. 1271–9. [CrossRef ] 4. Capitanio U, Terrone C, Antonelli A, Minervini A, Volpe A, Furlan M, et al. Nephron-sparing techniques independently decrease the risk of cardiovascular events relative to radical nephrectomy in patients with a T1a-T1b renal mass and normal preoperative renal function. Eur Urol 2015
  6. 683–9. [CrossRef ] 5. Forbes CM, Rendon RA, Finelli A, Kapoor A, Moore RB, Breau RH, et al. Disease progression and kidney function after partial vs. radical nephrectomy for T1 renal cancer. Urol Oncol 2016
  7. e17–486.e23. [CrossRef ] 6. Kim SP, Thompson RH, Boorjian SA, Weight CJ, Han LC, Murad MH, et al. Comparative effectiveness for survival and renal function of partial and radical nephrectomy for localized renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol 2012
  8. 51–7. [CrossRef ] 7. Scosyrev E, Messing EM, Sylvester R, Campbell S, Van Poppel H. Renal function after nephron-sparing surgery versus radical nephrectomy: results from EORTC randomized trial 30904. Eur Urol 2014
  9. 372–7. [CrossRef ] 8. Daabiss M. American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status classification. Indian J Anaesth 2011
  10. 111–5. [CrossRef ] 9. Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, Greene T, Rogers N, Roth D. A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group. Ann Intern Med 1999
  11. 461–70. [CrossRef ] 10. Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 2010
  12. 1471–4. [CrossRef] 11. Van Poppel H, Da Pozzo L, Albrecht W, Matveev V, Bono A, Borkowski A, et al. A prospective, randomised EORTC intergroup phase 3 study comparing the oncologic outcome of elective nephron-sparing surgery and radical nephrectomy for lowstage renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 2011
  13. 543–52. [CrossRef ] 12. Hunt JD, van der Hel OL, McMillan GP, Boffetta P, Brennan