Evolving Approach in Nephron-Sparing Surgery: Has Anything Changed from Open Surgery to Laparoscopy?

• Müslüm Ergün ^[1] ; Süleyman Sağır ^[2] ; Osman Akyüz ^[1] ; Ramazan Yavuz Akman ^[1]
  1. [1] Urology, Atlas University Medicine Hospital, 34200 Istanbul, Turkey
  2. [2] Urology, Artuklu University, 47100 Mardin, Turkey
• Localización: Archivos españoles de urología, ISSN 0004-0614, Tomo 77, Nº. 7, 2024, págs. 726-731
• Idioma: español
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • Objective: This study aimed to provide valuable insights into the comparative efficacy of different surgical approaches for nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) and contribute to the existing literature in this field.

    Materials and Methods: This study included patients who underwent NSS for small renal masses between January 2016 and March 2024. A total of 97 patients (41 in the open approach group, 56 in the laparoscopic approach group) with demographic, radiological, intraoperative, renal functional, and oncological follow-up data were included. Three different anatomical scoring systems (R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score, PADUA score and C-index) were utilised to assess tumour location and estimate proximity to the hilum and collecting system.

    Results: In the open nephron-sparing surgery (ONSS) and laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery (LNSS) groups, the mean kidney tumour diameters (SD) were 5.20 ± 2.30 and 4.90 ± 2.10, which were similar in both surgical method groups (p = 0.061). However, tumours treated with ONSS had significantly more adverse morphometric features (p < 0.05). For ONSS and LNSS groups, the mean R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores (SD) were 6.15 ± 2.04 and 5.2 ± 1.4 (p = 0.032), respectively; The mean PADUA scores (SD) were 7.46 ± 1.14 and 6.8 ± 1.0 (p = 0.049), respectively; And the mean C-index (SD) scores were 1.39 ± 0.4 and 1.37 ± 0.5 (p = 0.062), respectively. No significant differences were found in the mean tumour diameter (cm) (Inter Quantile Range (IQR)) distribution of both groups (p = 0.058). Despite the slight increase in transfusion rate in the LNSS group, estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion rates, and length of hospital stay were similar in both groups.

    Conclusions: Although LNSS does not appear superior in terms of intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay and transfu- sion rate, it provides comparable long-term outcomes to ONSS. Our study suggests that when matched with nephrometry scores, LNSS can achieve similar outcomes to ONSS