Outcomes of partial nephrectomy in patients who meet percutaneous ablation criteria

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction Treatment options for small renal masses include partial nephrectomy (PN), ablation and active surveillance. We sought to compare patients who met the criteria for percutaneous ablation but underwent robotic PN to the rest of our robotic PN cohort. This was done in order to detect any safety concerns and to define any risk factors that might contraindicate the use of robotic PN, an oncologically superior procedure, in patients who qualify for ablation. Material and methods Our departmental renal mass registry was queried for patients who underwent robotic PN but also met criteria for percutaneous ablation. These were compared to the rest of the robotic PN cohort. Demographics, perioperative characteristics and recurrence data were compared. Results Overall, 321 robotic PNs were identified. Of these, 26 (8.1%) met ablation criteria. Among patient characteristics, age and BMI were similar in both groups. Among operative characteristics, estimated blood loss (EBL) and operative time were similar. Warm ischemia time was significantly less for patients who met ablation criteria (14 vs. 17 minutes, p = 0.002). Mean tumor size was smaller for patients who met ablation criteria (2.3 vs. 2.7 cm, p = 0.012). Among postoperative characteristics, complications were similar overall and when present, stratified by Clavien grade. Conclusions Robotic PN is a safe, effective treatment option for small renal masses, even in patients who meet ablation criteria. There were no recurrences in our cohort and the majority of complications were Clavien grade 1.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)132-136
Number of pages5
JournalCentral European Journal of Urology
Volume68
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Robotics
Nephrectomy
Kidney
Recurrence
Warm Ischemia
Operative Time
Registries
Demography
Safety
Therapeutics
Neoplasms

Keywords

  • Partial nephrectomy
  • Percutaneous ablation
  • Renal cell carcinoma
  • Small renal mass

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Outcomes of partial nephrectomy in patients who meet percutaneous ablation criteria. / Harris, Kelly T.; Ball, Mark W.; Gorin, Michael; Allaf, Mohamad E; Pierorazio, Phillip Martin.

In: Central European Journal of Urology, Vol. 68, No. 2, 2015, p. 132-136.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6bcc92052d524da89a302a3da209082e,
title = "Outcomes of partial nephrectomy in patients who meet percutaneous ablation criteria",
abstract = "Introduction Treatment options for small renal masses include partial nephrectomy (PN), ablation and active surveillance. We sought to compare patients who met the criteria for percutaneous ablation but underwent robotic PN to the rest of our robotic PN cohort. This was done in order to detect any safety concerns and to define any risk factors that might contraindicate the use of robotic PN, an oncologically superior procedure, in patients who qualify for ablation. Material and methods Our departmental renal mass registry was queried for patients who underwent robotic PN but also met criteria for percutaneous ablation. These were compared to the rest of the robotic PN cohort. Demographics, perioperative characteristics and recurrence data were compared. Results Overall, 321 robotic PNs were identified. Of these, 26 (8.1{\%}) met ablation criteria. Among patient characteristics, age and BMI were similar in both groups. Among operative characteristics, estimated blood loss (EBL) and operative time were similar. Warm ischemia time was significantly less for patients who met ablation criteria (14 vs. 17 minutes, p = 0.002). Mean tumor size was smaller for patients who met ablation criteria (2.3 vs. 2.7 cm, p = 0.012). Among postoperative characteristics, complications were similar overall and when present, stratified by Clavien grade. Conclusions Robotic PN is a safe, effective treatment option for small renal masses, even in patients who meet ablation criteria. There were no recurrences in our cohort and the majority of complications were Clavien grade 1.",
keywords = "Partial nephrectomy, Percutaneous ablation, Renal cell carcinoma, Small renal mass",
author = "Harris, {Kelly T.} and Ball, {Mark W.} and Michael Gorin and Allaf, {Mohamad E} and Pierorazio, {Phillip Martin}",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.5173/ceju.2015.528",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "68",
pages = "132--136",
journal = "Central European Journal of Urology",
issn = "2080-4806",
publisher = "Panstwowy Zaklad Wydawnictw Lekarskich",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Outcomes of partial nephrectomy in patients who meet percutaneous ablation criteria

AU - Harris, Kelly T.

AU - Ball, Mark W.

AU - Gorin, Michael

AU - Allaf, Mohamad E

AU - Pierorazio, Phillip Martin

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Introduction Treatment options for small renal masses include partial nephrectomy (PN), ablation and active surveillance. We sought to compare patients who met the criteria for percutaneous ablation but underwent robotic PN to the rest of our robotic PN cohort. This was done in order to detect any safety concerns and to define any risk factors that might contraindicate the use of robotic PN, an oncologically superior procedure, in patients who qualify for ablation. Material and methods Our departmental renal mass registry was queried for patients who underwent robotic PN but also met criteria for percutaneous ablation. These were compared to the rest of the robotic PN cohort. Demographics, perioperative characteristics and recurrence data were compared. Results Overall, 321 robotic PNs were identified. Of these, 26 (8.1%) met ablation criteria. Among patient characteristics, age and BMI were similar in both groups. Among operative characteristics, estimated blood loss (EBL) and operative time were similar. Warm ischemia time was significantly less for patients who met ablation criteria (14 vs. 17 minutes, p = 0.002). Mean tumor size was smaller for patients who met ablation criteria (2.3 vs. 2.7 cm, p = 0.012). Among postoperative characteristics, complications were similar overall and when present, stratified by Clavien grade. Conclusions Robotic PN is a safe, effective treatment option for small renal masses, even in patients who meet ablation criteria. There were no recurrences in our cohort and the majority of complications were Clavien grade 1.

AB - Introduction Treatment options for small renal masses include partial nephrectomy (PN), ablation and active surveillance. We sought to compare patients who met the criteria for percutaneous ablation but underwent robotic PN to the rest of our robotic PN cohort. This was done in order to detect any safety concerns and to define any risk factors that might contraindicate the use of robotic PN, an oncologically superior procedure, in patients who qualify for ablation. Material and methods Our departmental renal mass registry was queried for patients who underwent robotic PN but also met criteria for percutaneous ablation. These were compared to the rest of the robotic PN cohort. Demographics, perioperative characteristics and recurrence data were compared. Results Overall, 321 robotic PNs were identified. Of these, 26 (8.1%) met ablation criteria. Among patient characteristics, age and BMI were similar in both groups. Among operative characteristics, estimated blood loss (EBL) and operative time were similar. Warm ischemia time was significantly less for patients who met ablation criteria (14 vs. 17 minutes, p = 0.002). Mean tumor size was smaller for patients who met ablation criteria (2.3 vs. 2.7 cm, p = 0.012). Among postoperative characteristics, complications were similar overall and when present, stratified by Clavien grade. Conclusions Robotic PN is a safe, effective treatment option for small renal masses, even in patients who meet ablation criteria. There were no recurrences in our cohort and the majority of complications were Clavien grade 1.

KW - Partial nephrectomy

KW - Percutaneous ablation

KW - Renal cell carcinoma

KW - Small renal mass

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84931839219&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84931839219&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5173/ceju.2015.528

DO - 10.5173/ceju.2015.528

M3 - Article

VL - 68

SP - 132

EP - 136

JO - Central European Journal of Urology

JF - Central European Journal of Urology

SN - 2080-4806

IS - 2

ER -