Korean J Urol.  2014 Apr;55(4):254-259. 10.4111/kju.2014.55.4.254.

The Nephrometry Score: Is It Effective for Predicting Perioperative Outcome During Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy?

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
  • 2Department of Urology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea. ssbyun@snubh.org
  • 3Choi Urology Clinic, Yongin, Korea.

Abstract

PURPOSE
Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) has emerged as an alternative treatment for the management of small renal masses. This study was designed to investigate parameters that predict perioperative outcomes during RPN.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 113 patients who underwent RPN between September 2008 and May 2012 at the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. Clinical parameters, including warm ischemia time (WIT), estimated blood loss (EBL), and R.E.N.A.L and PADUA scores, were evaluated to predict perioperative outcomes.
RESULTS
Of the 113 patients, 81 were men and 32 were women. The patients' mean age was 53.5 years, and their mean body mass index was 22.3 kg/m2. Age, gender, and mass laterality had no effect on perioperative complications, WIT, or EBL. Univariate analysis revealed that a distance between the tumor and the collecting system of < or =4 mm or a renal mass size of >4 cm were associated with adverse profiles of complications, WIT, and EBL. However, multivariate analysis showed no association between the predictive parameters and tumor complexity as assessed by nephrometry scores. Tumor size of >4 cm increased the risk of blood loss >300 mL (odds ratio [OR], 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3.9.7; p=0.016). A distance between the tumor and the collecting system of < or =4 mm was associated with increased risk of WIT exceeding 20 minutes (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3.6.3; p=0.012).
CONCLUSIONS
Tumor size and proximity of the mass to the collecting system showed significant associations with EBL and WIT, respectively, during RPN. The R.E.N.A.L and PADUA nephrometry scoring systems did not predict perioperative outcomes.

Keyword

Nephrectomy; Renal cell carcinoma; Robotics; Surgical blood loss; Warm ischemia

MeSH Terms

Blood Loss, Surgical
Body Mass Index
Carcinoma, Renal Cell
Female
Humans
Male
Medical Records
Multivariate Analysis
Nephrectomy*
Retrospective Studies
Robotics
Seoul
Warm Ischemia

Cited by  1 articles

Predicting trifecta outcomes after robot-assisted nephron-sparing surgery: Beyond the nephrometry score
Aditya P. Sharma, Ravimohan S. Mavuduru, Girdhar S. Bora, Sudheer K. Devana, Shrawan K. Singh, Arup K. Mandal
Investig Clin Urol. 2018;59(5):305-312.    doi: 10.4111/icu.2018.59.5.305.


Reference

1. Patard JJ, Shvarts O, Lam JS, Pantuck AJ, Kim HL, Ficarra V, et al. Safety and efficacy of partial nephrectomy for all T1 tumors based on an international multicenter experience. J Urol. 2004; 171(6 Pt 1):2181–2185.
2. Thompson RH, Boorjian SA, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, Kwon ED, Cheville JC, et al. Radical nephrectomy for pT1a renal masses may be associated with decreased overall survival compared with partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2008; 179:468–471.
3. Huang WC, Elkin EB, Levey AS, Jang TL, Russo P. Partial nephrectomy versus radical nephrectomy in patients with small renal tumors--is there a difference in mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. J Urol. 2009; 181:55–61.
4. Stephenson AJ, Hakimi AA, Snyder ME, Russo P. Complications of radical and partial nephrectomy in a large contemporary cohort. J Urol. 2004; 171:130–134.
5. Kutikov A, Uzzo RG. The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J Urol. 2009; 182:844–853.
6. Ficarra V, Novara G, Secco S, Macchi V, Porzionato A, De Caro R, et al. Preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) classification of renal tumours in patients who are candidates for nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol. 2009; 56:786–793.
7. Rosevear HM, Gellhaus PT, Lightfoot AJ, Kresowik TP, Joudi FN, Tracy CR. Utility of the RENAL nephrometry scoring system in the real world: predicting surgeon operative preference and complication risk. BJU Int. 2012; 109:700–705.
8. Aron M, Koenig P, Kaouk JH, Nguyen MM, Desai MM, Gill IS. Robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison from a high-volume centre. BJU Int. 2008; 102:86–92.
9. Wang AJ, Bhayani SB. Robotic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: single-surgeon analysis of >100 consecutive procedures. Urology. 2009; 73:306–310.
10. Benway BM, Bhayani SB, Rogers CG, Dulabon LM, Patel MN, Lipkin M, et al. Robot assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors: a multi-institutional analysis of perioperative outcomes. J Urol. 2009; 182:866–872.
11. Benway BM, Bhayani SB, Rogers CG, Porter JR, Buffi NM, Figenshau RS, et al. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: an international experience. Eur Urol. 2010; 57:815–820.
12. Thompson RH, Frank I, Lohse CM, Saad IR, Fergany A, Zincke H, et al. The impact of ischemia time during open nephron sparing surgery on solitary kidneys: a multi-institutional study. J Urol. 2007; 177:471–476.
13. Gill IS, Desai MM, Kaouk JH, Meraney AM, Murphy DP, Sung GT, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumor: duplicating open surgical techniques. J Urol. 2002; 167(2 Pt 1):469–476.
14. Gill IS, Matin SF, Desai MM, Kaouk JH, Steinberg A, Mascha E, et al. Comparative analysis of laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy for renal tumors in 200 patients. J Urol. 2003; 170:64–68.
15. Ramani AP, Desai MM, Steinberg AP, Ng CS, Abreu SC, Kaouk JH, et al. Complications of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in 200 cases. J Urol. 2005; 173:42–47.
16. Marszalek M, Meixl H, Polajnar M, Rauchenwald M, Jeschke K, Madersbacher S. Laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison of 200 patients. Eur Urol. 2009; 55:1171–1178.
17. Desai MM, Gill IS, Ramani AP, Spaliviero M, Rybicki L, Kaouk JH. The impact of warm ischaemia on renal function after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2005; 95:377–383.
18. Hayn MH, Schwaab T, Underwood W, Kim HL. RENAL nephrometry score predicts surgical outcomes of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2011; 108:876–881.
19. Hew MN, Baseskioglu B, Barwari K, Axwijk PH, Can C, Horenblas S, et al. Critical appraisal of the PADUA classification and assessment of the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score in patients undergoing partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2011; 186:42–46.
20. Rogers CG, Singh A, Blatt AM, Linehan WM, Pinto PA. Robotic partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors: surgical technique. Eur Urol. 2008; 53:514–521.
21. Rogers CG, Metwalli A, Blatt AM, Bratslavsky G, Menon M, Linehan WM, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy for renal hilar tumors: a multi-institutional analysis. J Urol. 2008; 180:2353–2356.
22. White MA, Haber GP, Autorino R, Khanna R, Hernandez AV, Forest S, et al. Outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy for renal masses with nephrometry score of ≥7. Urology. 2011; 77:809–813.
Full Text Links
  • KJU
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr