Functional and oncological outcomes of open laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a multicentre comparative matched-pair analyses with a median of 5 years' follow-up

被引:108
作者
Chang, Ki Don [1 ]
Raheem, Ali Abdel [2 ,3 ]
Kim, Kwang Hyun [4 ]
Oh, Cheol Kyu [5 ]
Park, Sung Yul [6 ]
Kim, Young Sik [7 ]
Ham, Won Sik [2 ]
Han, Woong Kyu [2 ]
Choi, Young Deuk [2 ]
Chung, Byung Ha [2 ]
Rha, Koon Ho [2 ]
机构
[1] Yonsei Wonju Univ, Coll Med, Urol Sci Inst, Dept Urol, Wonju, South Korea
[2] Yonsei Univ, Coll Med, Urol Sci Inst, Dept Urol, Seoul, South Korea
[3] Tanta Univ, Sch Med, Dept Urol, Tanta, Egypt
[4] Ewha Womans Univ, Sch Med, Dept Urol, Seoul, South Korea
[5] Inje Univ, Haeundae Paik Hosp, Dept Urol, Busan, South Korea
[6] Hanyang Univ, Coll Med, Dept Urol, Seoul, South Korea
[7] Ilsan Hosp, Natl Hlth Insurance Serv, Dept Urol, Goyang Si, South Korea
关键词
partial nephrectomy; robot-assisted; open; laparoscopic; long-term outcomes; NORMAL CONTRALATERAL KIDNEY; RENAL-CELL CARCINOMA; RADICAL NEPHRECTOMY; RECORD PROJECT; SURGERY; EXPERIENCE; TRIFECTA; MASSES; TRENDS;
D O I
10.1111/bju.14250
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 compare outcomes at a 5-year median follow-up among different partial nephrectomy (PN) approaches: robot-assisted (RAPN), laparoscopic (LPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN). Patients and Methods We retrospectively analysed 1 308 patients who underwent PN (RAPN, n = 380; LPN, n = 206; OPN, n = 722) between 2006 and 2012 at one of four academic centres. We performed 1:1:1 propensity-score-matching adjustment based on confounding variables among groups, and 366 patients (122 in each group) were included in the final analysis. Survival rates were analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results The median follow-up periods were 60, 59.8 and 64.1 months for RAPN, LPN and OPN, respectively. In the matched groups, RAPN resulted in significantly lower mean estimated blood loss compared with LPN (P = 0.025) and OPN (P = 0.040), while LPN was associated with a longer mean operating time compared with RAPN (P = 0.001) and OPN (P = 0.001). The hospital stay was shorter in the RAPN group (P = 0.008). Regarding the oncological outcomes, there were no significant differences among the three groups in local recurrence rate (P = 0.882), distant metastasis rate (P = 0.816) or deaths from cancer (P = 0.779). At latest follow-up, the incidence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) upstaging was significantly lower in RAPN compared with LPN (20.55% vs 32%; P = 0.035) and OPN (20.5% vs 33.6%; P = 0.038). The 5-year CKD free-survival rate was significantly higher (78.4%) in the RAPN group compared with 58.8% and 65.8% in the LPN and OPN groups, respectively (log-rank P = 0.031). Conclusions In the present study, RAPN, LPN and OPN had similar local recurrence, distant metastasis and cancer-related death rates at a 5-year median follow-up. In terms of functional outcomes, RAPN was associated with a lower incidence of CKD upstaging compared with OPN and LPN.
引用
收藏
页码:618 / 626
页数:9
相关论文
共 25 条
  • [1] Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Aboumarzouk, Omar M.
    Stein, Robert J.
    Eyraud, Remi
    Haber, Georges-Pascal
    Chlosta, Piotr L.
    Somani, Bhaskar K.
    Kaouk, Jihad H.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2012, 62 (06) : 1023 - 1033
  • [2] Comparison of the trifecta outcomes of robotic and open nephron-sparing surgeries performed in the robotic era of a single institution
    Acar, Omer
    Isik, Esin Ozturk
    Mut, Tuna
    Saglican, Yesim
    Onay, Aslihan
    Vural, Metin
    Musaoglu, Ahmet
    Esen, Tarik
    [J]. SPRINGERPLUS, 2015, 4
  • [3] Five-year Oncologic Outcomes After Transperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for Renal Cell Carcinoma
    Andrade, Hiury S.
    Zargar, Homayoun
    Caputo, Peter A.
    Akca, Oktay
    Kara, Onder
    Ramirez, Daniel
    Haber, Georges-Pascal
    Stein, Robert J.
    Kaouk, Jihad H.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 69 (06) : 1149 - 1154
  • [4] Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes Between Robotic and Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Choi, Ji Eun
    You, Ji Hye
    Kim, Dae Keun
    Rha, Koon Ho
    Lee, Seon Heui
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2015, 67 (05) : 891 - 901
  • [5] Partial nephrectomy for unilateral renal carcinoma and a normal contralateral kidney: 10-year followup
    Herr, HW
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1999, 161 (01) : 33 - 34
  • [6] National utilization trends of partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: A case of underutilization?
    Hollenbeck, BK
    Taub, DA
    Miller, DC
    Dunn, RL
    Wei, JT
    [J]. UROLOGY, 2006, 67 (02) : 254 - 259
  • [7] Comparison of Video-Assisted Minilaparotomy, Open, and Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for Renal Masses
    Jeon, Hwang Gyun
    Choi, Kyung Hwa
    Kim, Kwang Hyun
    Rha, Koon Ho
    Yang, Seung Choul
    Han, Woong Kyu
    [J]. YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2012, 53 (01) : 151 - 157
  • [8] Three-year Oncologic and Renal Functional Outcomes After Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy
    Khalifeh, Ali
    Autorino, Riccardo
    Eyraud, Remi
    Samarasekera, Dinesh
    Laydner, Humberto
    Panumatrassamee, Kamol
    Stein, Robert J.
    Kaouk, Jihad H.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2013, 64 (05) : 744 - 750
  • [9] Comparative Outcomes and Assessment of Trifecta in 500 Robotic and Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy Cases: A Single Surgeon Experience
    Khalifeh, Ali
    Autorino, Riccardo
    Hillyer, Shahab P.
    Laydner, Humberto
    Eyraud, Remi
    Panumatrassamee, Kamol
    Long, Jean-Alexandre
    Kaouk, Jihad H.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2013, 189 (04) : 1236 - 1242
  • [10] Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy in Patients with Baseline Chronic Kidney Disease: A Multi-institutional Propensity Score-Matched Analysis
    Kumar, Ramesh K.
    Sammon, Jesse D.
    Kaczmarek, Bartosz F.
    Khalifeh, Ali
    Gorin, Michael A.
    Sivarajan, Ganesh
    Tanagho, Youssef S.
    Bhayani, Sam B.
    Stifelman, Michael D.
    Allaf, Mohamad E.
    Kaouk, Jihad H.
    Rogers, Craig G.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2014, 65 (06) : 1205 - 1210