Clinical advantages of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in terms of global and split renal functions: A propensity score-matched comparative analysis

被引:4
|
作者
Kobayashi, Satoshi [1 ,2 ]
Mutaguchi, Jun [1 ,2 ]
Kashiwagi, Eiji [1 ]
Takeuchi, Ario [1 ]
Shiota, Masaki [1 ]
Inokuchi, Junichi [1 ]
Eto, Masatoshi [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Kyushu Univ, Dept Urol, Fukuoka, Japan
[2] Kyushu Univ, Dept Adv Med Initiat, Fac Med Sci, Fukuoka, Japan
关键词
kidney function tests; laparoscopy; nephrectomy; robotic surgical procedures; scintigraphy;
D O I
10.1111/iju.14525
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives To identify predictors of renal function preservation, and to compare the global and split renal function outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Methods Demographic, operative and pathological data, as well as renal function outcomes, of 251 patients who underwent laparoscopic (n = 104) and robot-assisted (n = 147) partial nephrectomy between 2008 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching (1:1) was carried out to adjust for potential baseline confounders. Functional outcomes were assessed based on the estimated glomerular filtration rate and dynamic renal scintigraphy (using Tc-99m-mercaptoacetyltriglycine), including renal volumetric analysis. Results A total of 98 patients were allocated to each partial nephrectomy group. Ischemic (laparoscopic vs robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: 29 vs 15 min, P < 0.001) and operative times (181 vs 100 min, P < 0.001) were shorter in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. The preservation ratio of global renal function at 3 months (88.3% vs 91.4%, P = 0.040) and 12 months (87.8% vs 91.5%, P = 0.010) postoperatively, and the renal function of the operated kidney (80.3% vs 88.2%, P < 0.001) were greater after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. In robot-assisted partial nephrectomy, the volume of resected parenchyma was significantly smaller (27.2 vs 15.5 mL, P < 0.001), resulting in greater postoperative normal parenchymal volumes (120 vs 132 mL, P < 0.001) and a greater parenchymal preservation ratio (81.1% vs 90.1%, P < 0.001). The parenchymal preservation ratio was the strongest predictor of renal function preservation after surgery (P < 0.001, odds ratio 6.02). Conclusions Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy allows better preservation of split renal function than laparoscopic partial nephrectomy by increasing the parenchymal preservation ratio. This translates into better postoperative global renal function.
引用
收藏
页码:630 / 636
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: A propensity score-matched comparative analysis of surgical outcomes and preserved renal parenchymal volume
    Tachibana, Hidekazu
    Takagi, Toshio
    Kondo, Tsunenori
    Ishida, Hideki
    Tanabe, Kazunari
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 25 (04) : 359 - 364
  • [2] Editorial Comment to Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: A propensity score-matched comparative analysis of surgical outcomes and preserved renal parenchymal volume
    Papalia, Rocco
    Mastroianni, Riccardo
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 25 (04) : 364 - 365
  • [3] Comparison of surgical outcomes and split renal function between laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis
    Tomoya Hatayama
    Ryo Tasaka
    Hideki Mochizuki
    Koji Mita
    [J]. International Urology and Nephrology, 2022, 54 : 805 - 811
  • [4] Comparison of surgical outcomes and split renal function between laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis
    Hatayama, Tomoya
    Tasaka, Ryo
    Mochizuki, Hideki
    Mita, Koji
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY, 2022, 54 (04) : 805 - 811
  • [5] Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for Giant Sporadic Renal Angiomyolipomas of ≥7 cm: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis
    Xiong, Yunqiang
    Deng, Wen
    Chen, Ru
    Liu, Xiaoqiang
    Zhu, Ke
    Wang, Jiayao
    Long, Jiahui
    Jiang, Haoxin
    Chen, Luyao
    Fu, Bin
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY, 2021, 2021
  • [6] Comparisons of the safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for large angiomyolipomas: a propensity score-matched analysis
    Zhang, Shengjie
    Lin, Tingsheng
    Liu, Guangxiang
    Zhang, Shiwei
    Guo, Hongqian
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY, 2020, 52 (09) : 1675 - 1682
  • [7] Comparisons of the safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for large angiomyolipomas: a propensity score-matched analysis
    Shengjie Zhang
    Tingsheng Lin
    Guangxiang Liu
    Shiwei Zhang
    Hongqian Guo
    [J]. International Urology and Nephrology, 2020, 52 : 1675 - 1682
  • [8] Propensity-score matched analysis comparing robot-assisted with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy
    Wu, Zhenjie
    Li, Mingmin
    Song, Shangqing
    Ye, Huamao
    Yang, Qing
    Liu, Bing
    Cai, Chen
    Yang, Bo
    Xiao, Liang
    Chen, Qi
    Lu, Chen
    Gao, Xu
    Xu, Chuanliang
    Gao, Xiaofeng
    Hou, Jianguo
    Wang, Linhui
    Sun, Yinghao
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2015, 115 (03) : 437 - 445
  • [9] Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in younger versus older adults with renal cell carcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysis
    Tomida, Ryotaro
    Fukawa, Tomoya
    Kusuhara, Yoshito
    Hashimoto, Keisuke
    Shiozaki, Keito
    Izumi, Kazuyoshi
    Ninomiya, Iku
    Kadoriku, Fumiya
    Izaki, Hirofumi
    Naroda, Takushi
    Okamoto, Kenjiro
    Kawanishi, Yasuo
    Kanayama, Hiro-omi
    Takahashi, Masayuki
    [J]. WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2024, 42 (01)
  • [10] Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy Versus Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy
    Jeong, Wooju
    Park, Sung Yul
    Lorenzo, Enrique Ian S.
    Oh, Cheol Kyu
    Han, Woong Kyu
    Rha, Koon Ho
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2009, 23 (09) : 1457 - 1460