Who Really Benefits From Nephron-sparing Surgery?

被引:34
|
作者
Woldu, Solomon L. [1 ]
Weinberg, Aaron C.
Korets, Ruslan
Ghandour, Rashed
Danzig, Matthew R.
RoyChoudhury, Arindam
Kalloo, Sean D.
Benson, Mitchell C.
DeCastro, G. Joel
McKiernan, James M.
机构
[1] Columbia Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Urol, New York, NY 10032 USA
关键词
CHRONIC KIDNEY-DISEASE; RENAL-CELL CARCINOMA; RADICAL NEPHRECTOMY; INSUFFICIENCY; TUMORS; RISK;
D O I
10.1016/j.urology.2014.05.061
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
OBJECTIVE To analyze the influence of preoperative renal function on postoperative renal outcomes after radical nephrectomy (RN) and nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) for malignancy in patients stratified according to preoperative chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage and surgical extent (NSS vs RN). PATIENTS AND METHODS Retrospective review of patients undergoing renal surgery for localized renal masses stratified by surgical extent and preoperative CKD stage based on glomerular filtration rate (GFR) level: stage I (>90 mL/min/1.73 m(2)), stage II (60-89 mL/min/1.73 m(2)), and stage III (30-59 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). Survival analysis for significant renal impairment was based on freedom from the development of new-onset GFR <30 or <45 mL/min/1.73 m(2). RESULTS A total of 1306 patients were included in the analysis with preoperative CKD stage I (27.9%), II (52.1%), and III (20.1%); 41.3% and 58.7% underwent NSS and RN, respectively. NSS was associated with a lower annual rate of GFR decline in preoperative CKD stage-I (P =.028) and stage-II patients (P = .018), but not in CKD stage-III patients (P = .753). Overall, 5.0% and 15.0% developed new-onset GFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and <45 mL/min/1.73 m(2), respectively. There was no difference in the probability of developing significant renal impairment between NSS and RN in CKD stage-I or -III patients, whereas only in CKD stage-II patients was the surgical extent independently associated with development of significant renal impairment (RN: odds ratio, 9.0; P = .042 for GFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and odds ratio, 2.3; P = .003 for GFR <45 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). CONCLUSION Compared with RN, NSS is associated with a lower rate of GFR decline for preoperative CKD stage-I and -II patients, but only CKD stage-II patients demonstrated a decreased risk of developing significant renal impairment. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:860 / 867
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Who Really Benefits From Nephron-sparing Surgery? REPLY
    Woldu, Solomon L.
    McKiernan, James M.
    [J]. UROLOGY, 2014, 84 (04) : 868 - 868
  • [2] Who Really Benefits From Nephron-sparing Surgery? EDITORIAL COMMENT
    Campbell, Steven C.
    Demirjian, Sevag
    Ercole, Cesar E.
    [J]. UROLOGY, 2014, 84 (04) : 867 - 868
  • [3] Nephron-Sparing Surgery
    Maroni, Paul
    Moss, Jacob
    [J]. SEMINARS IN INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, 2014, 31 (01) : 104 - 106
  • [4] Nephron-sparing surgery
    Lane, Brian R.
    Novick, Andrew C.
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2007, 99 (05) : 1245 - 1250
  • [5] Nephron-sparing surgery
    Becker, F.
    Siemer, S.
    Rotering, J.
    Suttmann, H.
    Stoeckle, M.
    [J]. UROLOGE, 2008, 47 (02): : 215 - 222
  • [6] Re: Woldu et al.: Who Really Benefits From Nephron-sparing Surgery? (Urology 2014;84: 860-868)
    Papadopoulos, Georgios
    Stathouros, Georgios
    Ntoumas, Konstantinos
    [J]. UROLOGY, 2015, 85 (03) : 706 - 706
  • [7] Re: Wolder et al.: Who Really Benefits From Nephron-sparing Surgery? (Urology 2014;84:860-868)
    Cozzi, Denis A.
    Ceccanti, Silvia
    Cozzi, Francesco
    [J]. UROLOGY, 2015, 85 (03) : 708 - 709
  • [8] Hemostatics for nephron-sparing surgery
    Minervini, Andrea
    Siena, Giampaolo
    Carini, Marco
    [J]. EXPERT REVIEW OF MEDICAL DEVICES, 2013, 10 (02) : 153 - 155
  • [9] Nephron-Sparing Surgery 2012
    Janssen, M.
    Treiyer, E. A.
    Saar, M.
    Ohlmann, C. -H.
    Kamradt, J.
    Junker, K.
    Stoeckle, M.
    Siemer, S.
    [J]. AKTUELLE UROLOGIE, 2012, 43 (06) : 399 - 402
  • [10] Nephron-sparing surgery.
    Ghavamian R.
    Zincke H.
    [J]. Current Urology Reports, 2001, 2 (1) : 34 - 39