Off-clamp Versus On-clamp Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy : A Propensity-matched Analysis
Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved..
BACKGROUND: Partial nephrectomy is the preferred treatment option for the management of small renal masses. On-clamp partial nephrectomy is associated with a risk of ischemia and a greater loss of postoperative renal function, while the off-clamp procedure decreases the duration of renal ischemia, leading to better renal function preservation. However, the efficacy of the off- versus on-clamp partial nephrectomy for renal function preservation remains debatable.
OBJECTIVE: To compare perioperative and functional outcomes following off- and on-clamp robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN).
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study used the prospective multinational collaborative Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative (VCQI) database for RAPN.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary objective of this study was the comparison of perioperative and functional outcomes between patients who underwent off- and on-clamp RAPN. Propensity scores were calculated for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), renal nephrometry score (RNS) and preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 2114 patients, 210 had undergone off-clamp RAPN and others on-clamp procedure. Propensity matching was possible for 205 patients in a 1:1 ratio. After matching, the two groups were comparable for age, sex, BMI, tumor size, multifocality, tumor side, face of tumor, RNS, polar location of the tumor, surgical access, and preoperative hemoglobin, creatinine, and eGFR. There was no difference between the two groups for intraoperative (4.8% vs 5.3%, p = 0.823) and postoperative (11.2% vs 8.3%, p = 0.318) complications. Need for blood transfusion (2.9% vs 0, p = 0.030) and conversion to radical nephrectomy (10.2% vs 1%, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the off-clamp group. At the last follow-up, there was no difference between the two groups for creatinine and eGFR. The mean fall in eGFR at the last follow-up compared with that at baseline was equivalent between the two groups (-16.0 vs -17.3 ml/min, p = 0.985).
CONCLUSIONS: Off-clamp RAPN does not result in better renal functional preservation. Alternatively, it may be associated with increased rates of conversion to radical nephrectomy and need for blood transfusion.
PATIENT SUMMARY: With this multicentric study, we noted that performing robotic partial nephrectomy without clamping the blood supply to the kidney is not associated with better preservation of renal function. However, off-clamp partial nephrectomy is associated with increased rates of conversion to radical nephrectomy and blood transfusion.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:6 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
European urology oncology - 6(2023), 5 vom: 14. Okt., Seite 525-530 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Sharma, Gopal [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Journal Article |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Revised 12.10.2023 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status Publisher |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.euo.2023.04.005 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM356962369 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM356962369 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231226071551.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.euo.2023.04.005 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1189.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM356962369 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)37193626 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)S2588-9311(23)00081-0 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Sharma, Gopal |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Off-clamp Versus On-clamp Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy |b A Propensity-matched Analysis |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 12.10.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status Publisher | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND: Partial nephrectomy is the preferred treatment option for the management of small renal masses. On-clamp partial nephrectomy is associated with a risk of ischemia and a greater loss of postoperative renal function, while the off-clamp procedure decreases the duration of renal ischemia, leading to better renal function preservation. However, the efficacy of the off- versus on-clamp partial nephrectomy for renal function preservation remains debatable | ||
| 520 | |a OBJECTIVE: To compare perioperative and functional outcomes following off- and on-clamp robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) | ||
| 520 | |a DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study used the prospective multinational collaborative Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative (VCQI) database for RAPN | ||
| 520 | |a OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary objective of this study was the comparison of perioperative and functional outcomes between patients who underwent off- and on-clamp RAPN. Propensity scores were calculated for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), renal nephrometry score (RNS) and preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 2114 patients, 210 had undergone off-clamp RAPN and others on-clamp procedure. Propensity matching was possible for 205 patients in a 1:1 ratio. After matching, the two groups were comparable for age, sex, BMI, tumor size, multifocality, tumor side, face of tumor, RNS, polar location of the tumor, surgical access, and preoperative hemoglobin, creatinine, and eGFR. There was no difference between the two groups for intraoperative (4.8% vs 5.3%, p = 0.823) and postoperative (11.2% vs 8.3%, p = 0.318) complications. Need for blood transfusion (2.9% vs 0, p = 0.030) and conversion to radical nephrectomy (10.2% vs 1%, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the off-clamp group. At the last follow-up, there was no difference between the two groups for creatinine and eGFR. The mean fall in eGFR at the last follow-up compared with that at baseline was equivalent between the two groups (-16.0 vs -17.3 ml/min, p = 0.985) | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: Off-clamp RAPN does not result in better renal functional preservation. Alternatively, it may be associated with increased rates of conversion to radical nephrectomy and need for blood transfusion | ||
| 520 | |a PATIENT SUMMARY: With this multicentric study, we noted that performing robotic partial nephrectomy without clamping the blood supply to the kidney is not associated with better preservation of renal function. However, off-clamp partial nephrectomy is associated with increased rates of conversion to radical nephrectomy and blood transfusion | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Partial nephrectomy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Propensity matching | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Robotic | |
| 650 | 4 | |a off clamp | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Shah, Milap |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ahluwalia, Puneet |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Dasgupta, Prokar |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Challacombe, Benjamin J |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Bhandari, Mahendra |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ahlawat, Rajesh |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rawal, Sudhir |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Buffi, Nicolo M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Sivaraman, Ananthakrishanan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Porter, James R |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rogers, Craig |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Mottrie, Alexandre |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Abaza, Ronney |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rha, Khoon Ho |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Moon, Daniel |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Yuvaraja, Thyavihally B |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Parekh, Dipen J |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Capitanio, Umberto |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Maes, Kris K |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Porpiglia, Francesco |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Turkeri, Levent |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gautam, Gagan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t European urology oncology |d 2018 |g 6(2023), 5 vom: 14. Okt., Seite 525-530 |w (DE-627)NLM285558595 |x 2588-9311 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:6 |g year:2023 |g number:5 |g day:14 |g month:10 |g pages:525-530 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2023.04.005 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 6 |j 2023 |e 5 |b 14 |c 10 |h 525-530 | ||