Dataset Information

Evaluation of functional outcome of bilateral kidney tumors after sequential surgery.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There are limited data concerning patients treated with sequential bilateral kidney surgery. Current guidelines still lack an optimal surgical sequencing approach. We evaluated renal functional outcomes after sequential partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) in patients with bilateral renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

Methods

A propensity score matched cohort of 267 patients (synchronous bilateral RCCs, N = 44 [88 lesions]; metachronous bilateral, N = 45 [90 lesions]; unilateral, N = 178) from two tertiary institutions were retrospectively analyzed. Synchronous bilateral RCCs were defined as diagnosis concomitantly or within 3 months of former tumor. Renal functional outcomes were defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) changes and de novo chronic kidney disease (CKD, stage ≥3) after surgery. Renal functional outcomes and clinical factors predicting de novo CKD were assessed using descriptive statistics and Cox regression analysis.

Results

In subgroup of bilateral RCCs, patients underwent sequential PN (N = 48), PN followed by RN (N = 8), or RN followed by PN (N = 25). Final postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs) were 79.4, 41.4, and 61.2 ml/minute/1.73 m2, respectively (p = 0.003). There were significant differences in eGFR decline from baseline and de novo chronic kidney disease (CKD stage ≥ III) among groups, with PN followed by RN group showing the worst functional outcomes (all p < 0.05). Moreover, sequential PN subgroup in bilateral RCC showed significantly higher rate of de novo CKD than unilateral RCC group (13.8% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.016). On multivariate analysis, hypertension (p = 0.010) and surgery sequence (PN followed by RN, p < 0.001) were significant predictors of de novo CKD.

Conclusions

The surgery sequence should be prudently determined in bilateral renal tumors. PN followed by RN showed a negative impact on renal functional preservation. Nephron-sparing surgery should be considered for all amenable bilateral RCCs.

SUBMITTER: Kim JK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8142506 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceApproximately 2 million cataract operations are performed annually in the US, and patterns of cataract surgery delivery are changing to meet the increasing demand. Therefore, a comparative analysis of visual acuity outcomes after immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) vs delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS) is important for informing future best practices.ObjectiveTo compare refractive outcomes of patients who underwent ISBCS, short-interval (1-14 days between operations) DSBCS (DSBCS-14), and long-interval (15-90 days) DSBCS (DSBCS-90) procedures.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used population-based data from the American Academy of Ophthalmology Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS) Registry. A total of 1 824 196 IRIS Registry participants with bilateral visual acuity measurements who underwent bilateral cataract surgery were assessed.ExposuresParticipants were divided into 3 groups (DSBCS-90, DSBCS-14, and ISBCS groups) based on the timing of the second eye surgery. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were used to analyze the refractive outcomes of the first and second surgery eye.Main outcomes and measuresMean postoperative uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) after cataract surgery.ResultsThis study analyzed data from 1 824 196 patients undergoing bilateral cataract surgery (mean [SD] age for those <87 years, 70.03 [7.77]; 684 916 [37.5%] male). Compared with the DSBCS-90 group, after age, self-reported race, insurance status, history of age-related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, and glaucoma were controlled for, the UCVA of the first surgical eye was higher by 0.41 (95% CI, 0.36-0.45; P < .001) letters, and the BCVA was higher by 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86-0.92; P < .001) letters in the DSBCS-14 group, whereas in the ISBCS group, the UCVA was lower by 2.79 (95% CI, -2.95 to -2.63; P < .001) letters and the BCVA by 1.64 (95% CI, -1.74 to -1.53; P < .001) letters. Similarly, compared with the DSBCS-90 group for the second eye, in the DSBCS-14 group, the UCVA was higher by 0.79 (95% CI, 0.74-0.83; P < .001) letters and the BCVA by 0.48 (95% CI, 0.45-0.51; P < .001) letters, whereas in the ISBCS group, the UCVA was lower by -1.67 (95% CI, -1.83 to -1.51; P < .001) letters and the BCVA by -1.88 (95% CI, -1.98 to -1.78; P < .001) letters.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this cohort study of patients in the IRIS Registry suggest that compared with DSBCS-14 or DSBCS-90, ISBCS is associated with worse visual outcomes, which may or may not be clinically relevant, depending on patients' additional risk factors. Nonrandom surgery group assignment, confounding factors, and large sample size could account for the small but statistically significant differences noted. Further studies are warranted to determine whether these factors should be considered clinically relevant when counseling patients before cataract surgery.

Project description:We conducted a retrospective comparative-effectiveness study of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and refractive error (RE) after immediate sequential (ISBCS) and delayed sequential (DSBCS) bilateral cataract surgery. We tested 2 hypotheses: (1) among DSBCS patients, second-eye outcomes were no different than first-eye outcomes; (2) averaged between each patient's 2 eyes, outcomes did not differ between ISBCS and DSBCS patients.Retrospective comparative-effectiveness study.Kaiser Permanente Northern California members who underwent noncomplex bilateral cataract surgery from January 1, 2013, through June 30, 2015.We performed an intention-to-treat analysis comparing ISBCS to DSBCS using conditional logistic regression analysis, accounting for surgeon and patient-level factors.BCVA, RE.The analysis of visual outcomes included both eyes of 13?711 DSBCS and 3561 ISBCS patients. Because of the large sample size, some statistical differences lacked clinical significance. Ocular comorbidities were slightly more prevalent in DSBCS patients. Postoperative BCVA was 20/20 or better in 48% of DSBCS first eyes, 49% of DSBCS second eyes, 53% of ISBCS right eyes, and 51% of ISBCS left eyes. The within-person difference in postoperative BCVA averaged zero (0.00) between the first and second DSBCS eyes, and between the ISBCS right and left eyes. After adjustment, average postoperative BCVA was better in ISBCS patients, although the difference was not statistically significant (compared with 20/20 or better: odds ratio for worse than 20/20 was 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.83-1.01). Emmetropia (spherical equivalent -0.5 to 0 diopter) was achieved in 61% of first DSBCS eyes, 61% of second DSBCS eyes, 63% of ISBCS right eyes, and 63% of ISBCS left eyes. After adjustment, average postoperative RE was no different in ISBCS compared with DSBCS patients (compared with emmetropia: odds ratio for ametropia was 1.02, confidence interval 0.92-1.12). We confirmed 1 case of postoperative endophthalmitis in 10?494 ISBCS eyes (1.0 per 10?000 eyes) and 2 cases in 38?736 DSBCS eyes (0.5 per 10?000 eyes) (P = 0.6), and no patient had bilateral endophthalmitis.Compared with DSBCS, we found no evidence that ISBCS was associated with worse postoperative BCVA or RE, or with an increased complication risk.

Project description:IntroductionIn China, the demand for implantable collamer lens (ICL) surgery is booming. Immediate sequential bilateral ICL surgery (ISBICLS) benefits patients and clinics, but it remains controversial and lacks standardization. We aim to investigate the prevalence of, factors for, and surgeon attitudes toward ISBICLS.MethodsIn this cross-sectional survey study, an electronic questionnaire about the practice and attitudes toward performing ISBICLS or delayed sequential bilateral ICL surgery (DSBICLS) was distributed to 792 qualified ICL surgeons in Mainland China, between 4 April and 22 April 2022.ResultsA total of 531 surgeons (66.79%) from 30 provinces in Mainland China responded. Among them, 374 (67.23%) were currently performing ISBICLS. Fifty-two percent (277) of surgeons reported performing ISBICLS more than 50% of the time, while 85.05% of surgeons chose to perform the second eye surgery 1 day after the first eye surgery. Seventy percent (248) of surgeons performing ISBICLS chose to perform the second eye surgery less than 30 min after the first eye surgery. Surgeons who started ICL surgery earlier (before 2010, OR = 2.772, 95% CI = 1.290-5.957, P = 0.009; 2011-2013, OR = 2.479, 95% CI = 1.060-5.800, P = 0.036), completed one-eye ICL surgery faster (< 3 min, OR = 3.936, 95% CI = 1.505-10.293, P = 0.005) and modified the second eye ICL selection less frequently (1-25%, OR = 0.203, 95% CI = 0.054-0.771, P = 0.019; 26-50%, OR = 0.173, 95% CI = 0.041-0.726, P = 0.017; 51-75%, OR = 0.299, 95% CI = 0.041-0.726, P = 0.123; 76-100%, OR = 0.163, 95% CI = 0.039-0.688, P = 0.014) tended to perform ISBICLS. No significant association was found among clinical settings, preoperative measurement devices, and hospital policies with performing ISBICLS. Regarding their attitudes toward ISBICLS, 54.63% preferred ISBICLS and 45.37% preferred DSBICLS. The main supporting reasons were patient convenience (98.64%), faster vision rehabilitation (73.56%), and improved perioperative compliance (73.22%). The concerns regarding ISBICLS included the risk of endophthalmitis (62.22%), lack of recommendation in expert consensus (61.67%), and decreased vault predictability (60.93%). The most common desires for further adoption were expert consensus on surgical criteria and patient indicators for ISBICLS (82.3%).ConclusionsISBICLS has been gradually adopted in Mainland China, but has not been widely accepted as a routine procedure. Surgeons' experience and skills mainly influence whether ISBICLS is performed. Further research is needed to explore standardized protocols to prevent endophthalmitis, the appropriate time interval of two eye surgery, and requisitions for surgeon skills.

Project description:BackgroundImmediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS), the cataract surgery that is performed in both eyes simultaneously, is gaining popularity worldwide compared to the traditional treatment paradigm: delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS), the surgery that is performed in each eye on a different day as a completely separate operation. ISBCS provides advantages to patients and patients' families in the form of fewer hospital visits. Additionally, patients enjoy rapid rehabilitation, lack of anisometropia - potentially reducing accidents and falls, and avoid suboptimal visual function in daily life. The hospital may benefit due to lower cost.ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate ISBCS and DSBCS.Data sourcesDatabases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Health Economic Evaluations Database (HEED), ISI Web of Science (Thomson-Reuters) and the Cochrane Library were searched.ParticipantsNot applicable.MethodsLiterature was systematically reviewed using EPPI-Reviewer 4 gateway. Meta-analysis was conducted using STATA v. 13.0. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated and heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. Fixed-effect and random-effect models were computed based on heterogeneity. Meta-analysis was done by instrument used to calculate utility score.ResultsIn total, 9,133 records were retrieved from multiple databases and an additional 128 records were identified through grey literature search. Eleven articles with 3,657 subjects were included for analysis. Our meta-analysis results indicated significant improvement in post-operative utility score using TTO, EQ5D, HUI3, VF-7, and VF-14 and a non-significant improvement using Catquest questionnaire for both surgeries. For ISBCS versus DSBCS, utility-specific fixed-effect model provided an overall SMD of the utility score using the TTO method as 0.12 (95% CI: -0.15, 0.40), EQ5D as 0.14 (95% CI: -0.14, 0.41), HUI3 as 0.12 (95% CI: -0.15, 0.40), VF-7 as -0.02 (95% CI: -0.15, 0.10), and Catquest Questionnaire as 1.45 (95% CI: -0.88, 2.01). The results for utility score, which were measured using various instruments, indicated non-significant improvement in the utility due to DSBCS compared to ISBCS. However, a significant improvement in post-operative utility score was seen using Catquest questionnaire for ISBCS compared to DSBCS. The included studies using VF-14 instrument were highly heterogeneous (I2 = 97.1%). Results provided SMD of -0.25 (95% CI:-1.06, 0.57) using VF-14 indicating non-significant improvement in the utility due to DSBCS compared to ISBCS surgery. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) significantly improved after both surgeries (overall SMD of BCVA due to ISBCS was -1.79 (95% CI: -2.45, -1.14) and due to DSBCS was -1.53 (95% CI: -2.25, -0.81)). A non-significant improvement was seen in BCVA due to ISBCS when compared to DSBCS (SMD = -0.18; 95% CI: -0.37, 0.01).ConclusionBoth surgeries, ISBCS and DSBCS significantly improve patients' quality of life and visual acuity. Further, ISBCS may deliver certain additional benefits at the individual and societal levels as well.