Sutureless versus conventional suture renorrhaphy in clampless robotic partial nephrectomy: A single center propensity score matching analysis

Actas urologicas espanolas Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-10 DOI:10.1016/j.acuroe.2025.501704
S. Kilic, M. Ates
{"title":"Sutureless versus conventional suture renorrhaphy in clampless robotic partial nephrectomy: A single center propensity score matching analysis","authors":"S. Kilic,&nbsp;M. Ates","doi":"10.1016/j.acuroe.2025.501704","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction and objectives</h3><div>Suture renorrhaphy remains as time-consuming in partial nephrectomy (PN) and carries the risk of renal arterial damage and renal functional loss. This study aims to compare the functional and oncological outcomes of the clampless and sutureless robotic PN (sRPN) with clampless conventional suture renorrhaphy RPN (cRPN).</div></div><div><h3>Patients</h3><div>A total of 173 consecutive patients who underwent RPN between January 2019 and December 2023 were identified from our center’s database and reviewed. Seventy-six clampless (sutureless: 23, conventional suture renorrhaphy: 53) RPN were identified. A propensity score-matchedpair analysis (PSM) was performed to homogenize the characteristics of the groups. Comprehensive evaluations of perioperative variables, functional and oncological results were performed before and after the PSM between the sRPN and cRPN.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Before the PSM, median console time was 10 min shorter in the sRPN group but was not statistically significant. Estimated median blood loss was significantly lower in the sRPN group (p &lt; 0.05). After PSM, 22 patients were matched in each group and all of the preoperative baseline characteristics were similar. Ratio of interpolar lines located tumors was higher in sRPN group (68.2% vs. 31.2%) (p &lt; 0.05). Median tumor diameter was 3 (1.5–7) cm in each group. The trifecta achievement rates were 90.9% and 77.2% for the sRPN and cRPN groups, respectively (p &gt; 0.05). There were no differences in terms of median console times, estimated blood loss, drain removal times or eGFR changes.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>In the treatment of small renal masses with clampless RPN, the sutureless technique can be applied with similar complication rates and functional, oncological outcomes as conventional sutured renorrhaphy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94291,"journal":{"name":"Actas urologicas espanolas","volume":"49 2","pages":"Article 501704"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Actas urologicas espanolas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2173578625000095","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction and objectives

Suture renorrhaphy remains as time-consuming in partial nephrectomy (PN) and carries the risk of renal arterial damage and renal functional loss. This study aims to compare the functional and oncological outcomes of the clampless and sutureless robotic PN (sRPN) with clampless conventional suture renorrhaphy RPN (cRPN).

Patients

A total of 173 consecutive patients who underwent RPN between January 2019 and December 2023 were identified from our center’s database and reviewed. Seventy-six clampless (sutureless: 23, conventional suture renorrhaphy: 53) RPN were identified. A propensity score-matchedpair analysis (PSM) was performed to homogenize the characteristics of the groups. Comprehensive evaluations of perioperative variables, functional and oncological results were performed before and after the PSM between the sRPN and cRPN.

Results

Before the PSM, median console time was 10 min shorter in the sRPN group but was not statistically significant. Estimated median blood loss was significantly lower in the sRPN group (p < 0.05). After PSM, 22 patients were matched in each group and all of the preoperative baseline characteristics were similar. Ratio of interpolar lines located tumors was higher in sRPN group (68.2% vs. 31.2%) (p < 0.05). Median tumor diameter was 3 (1.5–7) cm in each group. The trifecta achievement rates were 90.9% and 77.2% for the sRPN and cRPN groups, respectively (p > 0.05). There were no differences in terms of median console times, estimated blood loss, drain removal times or eGFR changes.

Conclusions

In the treatment of small renal masses with clampless RPN, the sutureless technique can be applied with similar complication rates and functional, oncological outcomes as conventional sutured renorrhaphy.
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
无夹机器人肾部分切除术中无缝线与传统缝线再缝合:单中心倾向评分匹配分析。
简介和目的:在部分肾切除术(PN)中,缝合肾修补术一直是耗时的,并且存在肾动脉损伤和肾功能丧失的风险。本研究旨在比较无夹和无缝线机器人PN (sRPN)与无夹常规缝合再缝合RPN (cRPN)的功能和肿瘤结果。患者:从我们中心的数据库中回顾了2019年1月至2023年12月期间连续173例接受RPN的患者。共发现76例无夹钳RPN(不缝合23例,常规缝合53例)。采用倾向评分配对分析(PSM)使各组成分均质化。在sRPN和cRPN之间的PSM前后进行围手术期变量、功能和肿瘤结果的综合评估。结果:在PSM前,sRPN组的中位治疗时间缩短了10分钟,但无统计学意义。sRPN组估计中位失血量显著降低(p < 0.05)。两组间的中位镇静时间、估计失血量、引流时间或eGFR变化均无差异。结论:无缝线技术在治疗无夹脚RPN小肾肿块时,其并发症发生率和功能、肿瘤预后与传统的缝合肾修补术相似。
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
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Endpoints and Evidence in Prostate Cancer Screening. Prognostic Factors and Oncological Outcomes after Trimodality Bladder-Preserving Therapy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Multicenter Real-World Study. Impact of Intravesical BCG Therapy on Quality of Life in Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Prospective Evaluation Using The FACT-Bl Questionnaire. Early- and late-onset male genital organ cancer mortality trends in Spain, 1999-2023. Comment on “Clinical profile and risk factors identified in patients with renal cancer in Mexican population”
×
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:604180095
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