Korean J Urol.  2014 Feb;55(2):97-101. 10.4111/kju.2014.55.2.97.

Factors Influencing the Operative Approach to Renal Tumors: Analyses According to RENAL Nephrometry Scores

• Oh JH
• Rhew HY
• Kim TS

• KMID: 1988433
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2014.55.2.97

Abstract

PURPOSE
To evaluate the relationship between RENAL nephrometry score (RNS) and operative approach for renal masses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study included 206 consecutive patients who underwent renal tumor surgery between January 2008 and October 2012. We divided the patients into four groups by surgical approach: open radical nephrectomy (ORN, 53 patients), laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN, 83 patients), open partial nephrectomy (OPN, 31 patients), and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN, 39 patients). We retrospectively assessed the RNS for each surgery group and evaluated the relationship between this score and operative approach.
RESULTS
The mean RNSs of the ORN, LRN, OPN, and LPN groups were 9.75, 8.35, 6.72, and 5.76, respectively. When the RNS was analyzed according to nephron-sparing, the mean RNSs of the RN groups (ORN and LRN) and the PN groups (OPN and LPN) were significantly different (8.89 and 6.09, respectively; p<0.001). All the individual components of the RNS were significantly different between RN and PN. In the RN groups, the criteria for open versus laparoscopic surgery were based on tumor size ('R' score=2.43 for open, 1.54 for laparoscopic, p<0.001) and tumor location relative to the polar line ('L' score=2.55 for open, 2.09 for laparoscopic, p=0.006). In the PN groups, the criteria for open or laparoscopic surgery were based only on exophytic/endophytic property ('E' score=1.87 for open, 1.41 for laparoscopic, p=0.046).
CONCLUSIONS
The RNS was significantly different in all surgery groups. The decision to take a laparoscopic approach was primarily influenced by the R and L scores for RN and by the E score for PN.

Keyword

Kidney; Laparoscopy; Nephrectomy

MeSH Terms

Humans
Kidney
Laparoscopy
Nephrectomy
Retrospective Studies

Reference

1. Adamy A, Favaretto RL, Nogueira L, Savage C, Russo P, Coleman J, et al. Recovery of renal function after open and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol. 2010; 58:596–601.

2. Simmons MN, Hillyer SP, Lee BH, Fergany AF, Kaouk J, Campbell SC. Functional recovery after partial nephrectomy: effects of volume loss and ischemic injury. J Urol. 2012; 187:1667–1673.

3. Lee CT, Katz J, Shi W, Thaler HT, Reuter VE, Russo P. Surgical management of renal tumors 4 cm. or less in a contemporary cohort. J Urol. 2000; 163:730–736.

4. Crepel M, Jeldres C, Perrotte P, Capitanio U, Isbarn H, Shariat SF, et al. Nephron-sparing surgery is equally effective to radical nephrectomy for T1BN0M0 renal cell carcinoma: a population-based assessment. Urology. 2010; 75:271–275.

5. Lifshitz DA, Shikanov SA, Deklaj T, Katz MH, Zorn KC, Eggener SE, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a single-center evolving experience. Urology. 2010; 75:282–287.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004; 240:205–213.

10. Satasivam P, Sengupta S, Rajarubendra N, Chia PH, Munshey A, Bolton D. Renal lesions with low R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score are associated with more indolent renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) or benign histology: findings in an Australian cohort. BJU Int. 2012; 109:Suppl 3. 44–47.

11. Long JA, Arnoux V, Fiard G, Autorino R, Descotes JL, Rambeaud JJ, et al. External validation of the RENAL nephrometry score in renal tumours treated by partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2013; 111:233–239.

12. 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.

13. Simmons MN, Ching CB, Samplaski MK, Park CH, Gill IS. Kidney tumor location measurement using the C index method. J Urol. 2010; 183:1708–1713.

14. Kolla SB, Spiess PE, Sexton WJ. Interobserver reliability of the RENAL nephrometry scoring system. Urology. 2011; 78:592–594.

15. Montag S, Waingankar N, Sadek MA, Rais-Bahrami S, Kavoussi LR, Vira MA. Reproducibility and fidelity of the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score. J Endourol. 2011; 25:1925–1928.

16. 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.

17. Canter D, Kutikov A, Manley B, Egleston B, Simhan J, Smaldone M, et al. Utility of the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scoring system in objectifying treatment decision-making of the enhancing renal mass. Urology. 2011; 78:1089–1094.

18. 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.

19. Stroup SP, Palazzi K, Kopp RP, Mehrazin R, Santomauro M, Cohen SA, et al. RENAL nephrometry score is associated with operative approach for partial nephrectomy and urine leak. Urology. 2012; 80:151–156.

20. Bruner B, Breau RH, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, Blute ML. Renal nephrometry score is associated with urine leak after partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2011; 108:67–72.

21. Mayer WA, Godoy G, Choi JM, Goh AC, Bian SX, Link RE. Higher RENAL Nephrometry Score is predictive of longer warm ischemia time and collecting system entry during laparoscopic and robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy. Urology. 2012; 79:1052–1056.

22. Liu ZW, Olweny EO, Yin G, Faddegon S, Tan YK, Han WK, et al. Prediction of perioperative outcomes following minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: role of the R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score. World J Urol. 2013; 31:1183–1189.

23. Altunrende F, Laydner H, Hernandez AV, Autorino R, Khanna R, White MA, et al. Correlation of the RENAL nephrometry score with warm ischemia time after robotic partial nephrectomy. World J Urol. 2013; 31:1165–1169.

24. Rais-Bahrami S, George AK, Herati AS, Srinivasan AK, Richstone L, Kavoussi LR. Off-clamp versus complete hilar control laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison by clinical stage. BJU Int. 2012; 109:1376–1381.

25. Wang HK, Zhu Y, Yao XD, Zhang SL, Dai B, Zhang HL, et al. External validation of a nomogram using RENAL nephrometry score to predict high grade renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2012; 187:1555–1560.

26. Kutikov A, Smaldone MC, Egleston BL, Manley BJ, Canter DJ, Simhan J, et al. Anatomic features of enhancing renal masses predict malignant and high-grade pathology: a preoperative nomogram using the RENAL Nephrometry score. Eur Urol. 2011; 60:241–248.

27. Okhunov Z, Shapiro EY, Moreira DM, Lipsky MJ, Hillelsohn J, Badani K, et al. R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score accurately predicts complications following laparoscopic renal cryoablation. J Urol. 2012; 188:1796–1800.