Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Resection Techniques During Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review.
Bertolo, Riccardo; Pecoraro, Alessio; Carbonara, Umberto; Amparore, Daniele; Diana, Pietro; Muselaers, Stijn; Marchioni, Michele; Mir, Maria Carmen; Antonelli, Alessandro; Badani, Ketan; Breda, Alberto; Challacombe, Ben; Kaouk, Jihad; Mottrie, Alexandre; Porpiglia, Francesco; Porter, Jim; Minervini, Andrea; Campi, Riccardo.
Afiliação
  • Bertolo R; Department of Urology, San Carlo Di Nancy Hospital, Rome, Italy.
  • Pecoraro A; Unit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
  • Carbonara U; Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation-Urology, Unit of Andrology and Kidney Transplantation, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
  • Amparore D; Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
  • Diana P; Department of Urology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Institute IRCCS, Rozzano, Italy.
  • Muselaers S; Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
  • Marchioni M; Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, Laboratory of Biostatistics, G. D'Annunzio Chieti-Pescara University, Chieti, Italy.
  • Mir MC; Department of Urology, SS Annunziata Hospital, G. D'Annunzio Chieti-Pescara University, Chieti, Italy.
  • Antonelli A; Servicio de Urología, Fundación Investigación Hospital IMED Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
  • Badani K; Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.
  • Breda A; Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
  • Challacombe B; Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
  • Kaouk J; Department of Urology, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
  • Mottrie A; Glickman Urological & Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
  • Porpiglia F; Orsi Academy, Melle, Belgium.
  • Porter J; Department of Urology, Onze-Lieve-Vrouw Ziekenhuis, Aalst, Belgium.
  • Minervini A; Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
  • Campi R; Swedish Urology Group, Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Eur Urol Open Sci ; 52: 7-21, 2023 Jun.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37182118
ABSTRACT
Context The resection technique used to excise tumor during robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) is of paramount importance in achieving optimal clinical outcomes.

Objective:

To provide an overview of the different resection techniques used during RPN, and a pooled analysis of comparative studies. Evidence acquisition The systematic review was conducted according to established principles (PROSPERO CRD42022371640) on November 7, 2022. A population (P adult patients undergoing RPN), intervention (I enucleation), comparator (C enucleoresection or wedge resection), outcome (O outcome measurements of interest), and study design (S) framework was prespecified to assess study eligibility. Studies reporting a detailed description of resection techniques and/or evaluating the impact of resection technique on outcomes of surgery were included. Evidence

synthesis:

Resection techniques used during RPN can be broadly classified as resection (non-anatomic) or enucleation (anatomic). A standardized definition for these is lacking. Out of 20 studies retrieved, nine compared "standard" resection versus enucleation. A pooled analysis did not reveal significant differences in terms of operative time, ischemia time, blood loss, transfusions, or positive margins. Significant differences favoring enucleation were found for clamping management (odds ratio [OR] for renal artery clamping 3.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-10.88; p = 0.03), overall complications (OR for occurrence 0.55, 95% CI 0.34-0.87; p = 0.01) major complications (OR for occurrence 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.79; p = 0.009), length of stay (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.72 d, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.45; p < 0.001), and decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (WMD -2.64 ml/min, 95% CI -5.15 to -0.12; p = 0.04).

Conclusions:

There is heterogeneity in the reporting of resection techniques used during RPN. The urological community must improve the quality of reporting and research produced accordingly. Positive margins are not specifically related to the resection technique. Focusing on studies comparing standard resection versus enucleation, advantages with tumor enucleation in terms of avoidance of artery clamping, overall/major complications, length of stay, and renal function were found. These data should be considered when planning the RPN resection strategy. Patient

summary:

We reviewed studies on robotic surgery for partial kidney removal using different techniques to cut away the kidney tumor. We found that a technique called "enucleation" was associated with similar cancer control outcomes in comparison to the standard technique and had fewer complications, better kidney function after surgery, and a shorter hospital stay.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article