Dataset Information

Robotic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors larger than 4 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

With the establishment of minimally invasive surgery in society, the robot has been increasingly widely used in the urologic field, including in partial nephrectomy. This study aimed to comprehensively summarize the currently available evidence on the feasibility and safety of robotic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors of >4 cm.

Method and findings

An electronic database search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was performed. This systematic review and meta-analysis was based on all relevant studies that assessed robotic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors of >4 cm. Five studies were included. The meta-analysis involved 3 studies from 11 institutions including 154 patients, while the narrative review involved the remaining 2 studies from 5 institutions including 64 patients. In the meta-analysis, the mean ischemic time, operation time, and console time was 28, 319, and 189 minutes, respectively. The estimated blood loss and length of stay was 317 ml and 3.8 days, respectively. The rates of conversion, positive margins, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, hilar clamping, and collecting system repair were 7.0%, 3.5%, 7.0%, 9.8%, 93.9%, and 47.5%, respectively. The narrative review showed results similar to those of the meta-analysis.

Conclusions

Robotic partial nephrectomy is feasible and safe for renal tumors of >4 cm with an acceptable warm ischemic time, positive margin rate, conversion rate, complication rate, operation time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay.

SUBMITTER: Bi L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3792962 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextThe resection technique used to excise tumor during robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) is of paramount importance in achieving optimal clinical outcomes.ObjectiveTo provide an overview of the different resection techniques used during RPN, and a pooled analysis of comparative studies.Evidence acquisitionThe systematic review was conducted according to established principles (PROSPERO: CRD42022371640) on November 7, 2022. A population (P: adult patients undergoing RPN), intervention (I: enucleation), comparator (C: enucleoresection or wedge resection), outcome (O: outcome measurements of interest), and study design (S) framework was prespecified to assess study eligibility. Studies reporting a detailed description of resection techniques and/or evaluating the impact of resection technique on outcomes of surgery were included.Evidence synthesisResection techniques used during RPN can be broadly classified as resection (non-anatomic) or enucleation (anatomic). A standardized definition for these is lacking. Out of 20 studies retrieved, nine compared "standard" resection versus enucleation. A pooled analysis did not reveal significant differences in terms of operative time, ischemia time, blood loss, transfusions, or positive margins. Significant differences favoring enucleation were found for clamping management (odds ratio [OR] for renal artery clamping 3.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-10.88; p = 0.03), overall complications (OR for occurrence 0.55, 95% CI 0.34-0.87; p = 0.01) major complications (OR for occurrence 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.79; p = 0.009), length of stay (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.72 d, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.45; p < 0.001), and decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (WMD -2.64 ml/min, 95% CI -5.15 to -0.12; p = 0.04).ConclusionsThere is heterogeneity in the reporting of resection techniques used during RPN. The urological community must improve the quality of reporting and research produced accordingly. Positive margins are not specifically related to the resection technique. Focusing on studies comparing standard resection versus enucleation, advantages with tumor enucleation in terms of avoidance of artery clamping, overall/major complications, length of stay, and renal function were found. These data should be considered when planning the RPN resection strategy.Patient summaryWe reviewed studies on robotic surgery for partial kidney removal using different techniques to cut away the kidney tumor. We found that a technique called "enucleation" was associated with similar cancer control outcomes in comparison to the standard technique and had fewer complications, better kidney function after surgery, and a shorter hospital stay.

Project description:Introduction: Cryoablation has been considered as the most efficacious ablative alternative to partial nephrectomy (PN) for selected patients. Our objective is to assess the existing evidence relating to the safety and efficacy of cryoablation compared with PN for clinical T1 renal masses. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search of PMC, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify studies containing comparison of cryoablation and PN. By utilizing those included studies, a systematic review and cumulative meta-analyses were performed to assess the safety and efficacy between cryoablation and PN for T1 renal masses. Results: 17 retrospective studies providing available data were included in our study. Significant differences were found about all oncological variables including all-cause death, cancer-specific death, metastasis and local-recurrence (p < 0.001, p = 0.03, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively) between the PN group and the cryoablation group. The mean difference between two groups for percent estimated glomerular filtration rate decrease and creatinine increase was -4.84 and 0.15 respectively (p < 0.001 and p = 0.006, respectively). The incidences of overall and postoperative complications in the PN group were significantly higher than that in the cryoablation group (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively), but the result about intraoperative complications didn't show a significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.53). Conclusions: Comparing with PN, cryoablation for clinical T1 renal tumors is associated with poorer oncological outcomes, but the existing disadvantages are accompanied by lower rate of overall and postoperative complications and superior renal functional preservation. For patients with imperative indications for nephron-sparing surgery who can't risk more invasive PN, cryoablation could be an attractive option. Owing to the inherent limitations of eligible studies, conclusions drawn from our meta-analyses should be interpreted cautiously and be confirmed further with well-designed randomized controlled trials with extensive follow-up length.