Comparison of Trifecta and Pentafecta Outcomes across 3 Surgical Modalities of Partial Nephrectomy (PN) - Open, Lap, and Robotic.

IF 1.9 Q3 ONCOLOGY Journal of Kidney Cancer and VHL Pub Date : 2024-08-07 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.15586/jkcvhl.v11i3.308
Hiranya Deka, N Mallikarjunarao Medam, Ginil Kumar P, Vishnu P, Manav Gideon, Achuth Ajith Kumar, Yensani Prashanth Reddy, Shivraj Barath Kumar
{"title":"Comparison of Trifecta and Pentafecta Outcomes across 3 Surgical Modalities of Partial Nephrectomy (PN) - Open, Lap, and Robotic.","authors":"Hiranya Deka, N Mallikarjunarao Medam, Ginil Kumar P, Vishnu P, Manav Gideon, Achuth Ajith Kumar, Yensani Prashanth Reddy, Shivraj Barath Kumar","doi":"10.15586/jkcvhl.v11i3.308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common solid tumor in the kidney (90%), accounting for about 3% of all cancers in adults. Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the surgical procedure primarily used for the treatment of localized kidney tumors. Two commonly used terms to describe the complexity and success of a partial nephrectomy procedure are \"trifecta\" and \"pentafecta.\" Trifecta is defined as Warm ischemia time (WIT) ≤ 25min or Cold ischemia time (CIT) ≤ 60min, Negative surgical margin (NSM), and no perioperative Clavien-Dindo complications (CDC) of Gr 3 or more [8], whereas pentafecta is defined as trifecta plus >90% preservation of e-Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and no increase in chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage at 12-months post-operative period. We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent partial nephrectomy at a single high-volume tertiary centre, from 2012 to 2020. We included patients who underwent partial nephrectomy by any of the three routes including open (OPN), laparoscopic (LPN), or robotic-assisted (RPN), and in which the follow-up data was available. We compared the trifecta and pentafecta outcomes across the three surgical modalities. We had a total of 183 patients in our study. Twenty-nine percent (53 patients) underwent open surgery, 12.6% (23 patients) underwent laparoscopic surgery and 58.5% (107) underwent robotic assisted surgery. The number of patients who fell under the low risk category in the RENAL scoring system were 70(38.3%), intermediate risk 79 (43.2%) and high risk 34 (18.6%). In the high risk RENAL score group, trifecta was achieved in 5 (50%) patients in OPN, 1(50%) in LPN and 7(31.8%) in RPN with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.581) whereas pentafecta was achieved in 3 (30%) patients in OPN, 1 (50%) in LPN and 7 (31.8%) in RPN with no statistically significant difference (0.855). In the overall cohort, mean WIT, mean hospital stay and mean EBL were higher in OPN as compared to LPN and RPN which was statistically significant (p < 0.001), whereas there was no statistical difference in mean operative time between the three modalities (p = 0.580). Renal tumors can be safely treated by RPN or LPN with lesser morbidity as compared to OPN. Trifecta and Pentafecta outcomes had no significant difference among OPN, LPN, and RPN. RPN and LPN may be considered feasible and safe surgical approaches ensuring good functional outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":44291,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Kidney Cancer and VHL","volume":"11 3","pages":"27-32"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11316447/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Kidney Cancer and VHL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15586/jkcvhl.v11i3.308","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common solid tumor in the kidney (90%), accounting for about 3% of all cancers in adults. Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the surgical procedure primarily used for the treatment of localized kidney tumors. Two commonly used terms to describe the complexity and success of a partial nephrectomy procedure are "trifecta" and "pentafecta." Trifecta is defined as Warm ischemia time (WIT) ≤ 25min or Cold ischemia time (CIT) ≤ 60min, Negative surgical margin (NSM), and no perioperative Clavien-Dindo complications (CDC) of Gr 3 or more [8], whereas pentafecta is defined as trifecta plus >90% preservation of e-Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and no increase in chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage at 12-months post-operative period. We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent partial nephrectomy at a single high-volume tertiary centre, from 2012 to 2020. We included patients who underwent partial nephrectomy by any of the three routes including open (OPN), laparoscopic (LPN), or robotic-assisted (RPN), and in which the follow-up data was available. We compared the trifecta and pentafecta outcomes across the three surgical modalities. We had a total of 183 patients in our study. Twenty-nine percent (53 patients) underwent open surgery, 12.6% (23 patients) underwent laparoscopic surgery and 58.5% (107) underwent robotic assisted surgery. The number of patients who fell under the low risk category in the RENAL scoring system were 70(38.3%), intermediate risk 79 (43.2%) and high risk 34 (18.6%). In the high risk RENAL score group, trifecta was achieved in 5 (50%) patients in OPN, 1(50%) in LPN and 7(31.8%) in RPN with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.581) whereas pentafecta was achieved in 3 (30%) patients in OPN, 1 (50%) in LPN and 7 (31.8%) in RPN with no statistically significant difference (0.855). In the overall cohort, mean WIT, mean hospital stay and mean EBL were higher in OPN as compared to LPN and RPN which was statistically significant (p < 0.001), whereas there was no statistical difference in mean operative time between the three modalities (p = 0.580). Renal tumors can be safely treated by RPN or LPN with lesser morbidity as compared to OPN. Trifecta and Pentafecta outcomes had no significant difference among OPN, LPN, and RPN. RPN and LPN may be considered feasible and safe surgical approaches ensuring good functional outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
开腹、腹腔镜和机器人三种肾部分切除术 (PN) 手术方式的三联疗法和五联疗法效果比较。
肾细胞癌(RCC)是肾脏中最常见的实体瘤(占 90%),约占成人癌症总数的 3%。肾部分切除术(PN)是主要用于治疗局部肾肿瘤的手术方法。描述肾部分切除术的复杂性和成功率的两个常用术语是 "三连胜 "和 "五连胜"。三连冠的定义是热缺血时间(WIT)≤25分钟或冷缺血时间(CIT)≤60分钟、手术切缘阴性(NSM)、围手术期无3级或以上的克拉维恩-丁多并发症(CDC)[8],而五连冠的定义是三连冠加上e-肾小球滤过率(GFR)保持率大于90%以及术后12个月慢性肾脏病(CKD)分期无增加。我们回顾性分析了 2012 年至 2020 年在一家高容量三级中心接受肾部分切除术的所有患者。我们纳入了通过开腹(OPN)、腹腔镜(LPN)或机器人辅助(RPN)等三种途径中的任何一种接受肾部分切除术且有随访数据的患者。我们比较了三种手术方式的三联和五联结果。我们的研究中共有 183 名患者。29%(53 名患者)接受了开腹手术,12.6%(23 名患者)接受了腹腔镜手术,58.5%(107 名患者)接受了机器人辅助手术。在 RENAL 评分系统中,属于低风险类别的患者有 70 人(38.3%),中风险 79 人(43.2%),高风险 34 人(18.6%)。在高风险 RENAL 评分组中,OPN 有 5 名(50%)患者达到三连冠,LPN 有 1 名(50%)患者达到三连冠,RPN 有 7 名(31.8%)患者达到三连冠,差异无统计学意义(P = 0.581),而 OPN 有 3 名(30%)患者达到五连冠,LPN 有 1 名(50%)患者达到五连冠,RPN 有 7 名(31.8%)患者达到五连冠,差异无统计学意义(0.855)。在总体队列中,OPN 的平均 WIT、平均住院时间和平均 EBL 均高于 LPN 和 RPN,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.001),而三种方式的平均手术时间没有统计学差异(P = 0.580)。与 OPN 相比,RPN 或 LPN 可以安全地治疗肾肿瘤,且发病率较低。OPN、LPN和RPN的Trifecta和Pentafecta结果没有显著差异。RPN和LPN被认为是可行且安全的手术方法,可确保良好的功能效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
6.20%
发文量
22
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊最新文献
Surveillance in Children and Adolescents with von Hippel-Lindau (VHL)-Related Pheochromocytomas and Paragangliomas: A Survey of MET and Freiburg-VHL Registries in Germany. Avoidable Benign Kidney Tumor Resections-Data from a Tertiary Care Cancer Institute. Primary Nonseminomatous Germ Cell Tumor of Kidney: An Uncommon Renal Neoplasm. Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma with Sarcomatoid Differentiation (osteosarcomatous and chondrosarcomatous differentiation)-A Case Report and Comprehensive Review. An Uncommon Case of Sinonasal Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma Metastatic to the Kidney Treated with Metastasectomy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1