[Evaluation of the Padua and R.E.N.A.L. scores regarding their validity and implication in the perioperative management during partial nephrectomy]. / Evaluation von Padua- und R.E.N.A.L.-Score hinsichtlich ihrer Aussagekraft und Implikationen auf das perioperative Management bei der partiellen Nephrektomie.

BACKGROUND: Due to the rapid development of minimally-invasive surgery, there is a broader indication for surgical preservation of renal tissue. Current research suggests that, apart from the size of the tumour, its exact anatomical position should be considered when seeking optimal surgical treatment for individual patients. Therefore, numerous nephrometry scores have emerged, the Padua score and the R.E.N.A.L. score being most commonly used. Based on our patient population, we aimed to shed light on the question which score is best suited to assess the feasibility of nephron-sparing surgery and which can predict complications most accurately. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study included 117 patients treated with partial nephrectomy at the University Hospital in Kiel (UKSH, Campus Kiel) between 2014 and 2017. The imaging results (computed tomography and magnetic resonance tomography) were retrospectively evaluated according to the Padua and R.E.N.A.L. score criteria. In some cases, radical nephrectomy became necessary despite the planned partial nephrectomy. We evaluated group differences regarding both nephrometry scores in these cases and the cases without radical nephrectomy. Then we performed correlation analyses regarding score outcome, operation time as well as perioperative, postoperative and overall complications. RESULTS: The tumours requiring treatment by radical nephrectomy (10 out of 117) had significantly higher scores only when the R.E.N.A.L. score was applied (mean difference 1.059, p < 0.05). Both the Padua and the R.E.N.A.L. score were positive correlated with operation time (R.E.N.A.L. score: correlation coefficient 0.284, p < 0.05, Padua score: coefficient 0.312, p < 0.05) as well as perioperative, postoperative and overall complications (R.E.N.A.L. score: coefficient 0.216, p < 0.05, Padua score: coefficient 0.192, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Each of the examined scores can be used to assess the risk of partial nephrectomy. For our patients, the preoperative application of the R.E.N.A.L. score would have been advantageous. Preoperative nephrometry scores are a useful tool and should be applied in addition to the surgeon's subjective evaluation. There is a lack of prospective studies investigating this issue.