{"title":"在机器人辅助肾部分切除术治疗中高复杂性肾肿块时,动静脉夹钳与纯动脉夹钳的肾功能比较:倾向匹配研究","authors":"Kentaro Muraoka, Ryosuke Jikuya, Koichi Uemura, Takuya Kondo, Tomoyuki Tatenuma, Mitsuru Komeya, Hiroki Ito, Yusuke Ito, Hisashi Hasumi, Kazuhide Makiyama","doi":"10.1111/iju.15567","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectiveArtery and vein (AV) clamps can control venous bleeding in the surgical field and prevent carbon dioxide embolism, especially when large veins are expected to open. However, whether AV clamps cause more renal damage than artery‐only (AO) clamps remains unclear. This study aimed to compare renal function and blood loss in surgeries using AO and AV clamps based on high RENAL nephrometry scores (RNS) in robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN).MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 500 patients who underwent RAPN between March 2016 and December 2021. We performed 1:1 propensity matching for these patients.ResultsA total of 340 patients with pathological malignancies who were followed up for at least 12 months were included in this analysis. A total of 291 patients with AO clamping and 49 patients with AV clamping were included. Overall, the AV clamp group had higher total RNSs and larger diameters than the AO clamp group. Propensity score‐matched analysis included 37 patients in each clamp group. The median warm ischemia times of the AV and AO clamps were 25 and 22 min, respectively, with no significant difference. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in the amount of blood loss, rate of acute kidney injury (AKI), or renal function at 1, 3, or 12 months post‐RAPN.ConclusionCompared with the AO clamp, the AV clamp did not have a detrimental impact on blood loss or renal dysfunction. Consequently, AV clamps may be considered for patients presenting with moderate‐to‐high‐complexity RNSs.","PeriodicalId":14323,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Urology","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of renal function between the artery and vein clamp and artery‐only clamp in robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy for moderate‐ to high‐complexity renal masses: A propensity‐matched study\",\"authors\":\"Kentaro Muraoka, Ryosuke Jikuya, Koichi Uemura, Takuya Kondo, Tomoyuki Tatenuma, Mitsuru Komeya, Hiroki Ito, Yusuke Ito, Hisashi Hasumi, Kazuhide Makiyama\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/iju.15567\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ObjectiveArtery and vein (AV) clamps can control venous bleeding in the surgical field and prevent carbon dioxide embolism, especially when large veins are expected to open. However, whether AV clamps cause more renal damage than artery‐only (AO) clamps remains unclear. This study aimed to compare renal function and blood loss in surgeries using AO and AV clamps based on high RENAL nephrometry scores (RNS) in robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN).MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 500 patients who underwent RAPN between March 2016 and December 2021. We performed 1:1 propensity matching for these patients.ResultsA total of 340 patients with pathological malignancies who were followed up for at least 12 months were included in this analysis. A total of 291 patients with AO clamping and 49 patients with AV clamping were included. Overall, the AV clamp group had higher total RNSs and larger diameters than the AO clamp group. Propensity score‐matched analysis included 37 patients in each clamp group. The median warm ischemia times of the AV and AO clamps were 25 and 22 min, respectively, with no significant difference. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in the amount of blood loss, rate of acute kidney injury (AKI), or renal function at 1, 3, or 12 months post‐RAPN.ConclusionCompared with the AO clamp, the AV clamp did not have a detrimental impact on blood loss or renal dysfunction. Consequently, AV clamps may be considered for patients presenting with moderate‐to‐high‐complexity RNSs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14323,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.15567\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.15567","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的 动静脉(AV)夹可控制手术野的静脉出血并防止二氧化碳栓塞,尤其是在大静脉预期开放的情况下。然而,动静脉夹是否会比单纯动脉(AO)夹造成更多的肾损伤仍不清楚。本研究旨在根据机器人辅助肾部分切除术(RAPN)中高RENAL肾血压评分(RNS),比较使用AO和AV夹钳手术中的肾功能和失血量。方法我们回顾性分析了2016年3月至2021年12月期间接受RAPN手术的500名患者的病历。结果共有 340 名随访至少 12 个月的病理恶性肿瘤患者被纳入本次分析。共有 291 名患者采用了 AO 夹钳,49 名患者采用了 AV 夹钳。总体而言,与 AO 夹钳组相比,AV 夹钳组的 RNS 总量更高,直径更大。倾向评分匹配分析在每个钳夹组都纳入了 37 名患者。房室夹钳和 AO 夹钳的中位温暖缺血时间分别为 25 分钟和 22 分钟,无显著差异。结论与 AO 夹钳相比,房室夹钳对失血量或肾功能障碍没有不利影响。因此,对于中度至高度复杂的 RNS 患者,可以考虑使用房室夹钳。
Comparison of renal function between the artery and vein clamp and artery‐only clamp in robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy for moderate‐ to high‐complexity renal masses: A propensity‐matched study
ObjectiveArtery and vein (AV) clamps can control venous bleeding in the surgical field and prevent carbon dioxide embolism, especially when large veins are expected to open. However, whether AV clamps cause more renal damage than artery‐only (AO) clamps remains unclear. This study aimed to compare renal function and blood loss in surgeries using AO and AV clamps based on high RENAL nephrometry scores (RNS) in robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN).MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 500 patients who underwent RAPN between March 2016 and December 2021. We performed 1:1 propensity matching for these patients.ResultsA total of 340 patients with pathological malignancies who were followed up for at least 12 months were included in this analysis. A total of 291 patients with AO clamping and 49 patients with AV clamping were included. Overall, the AV clamp group had higher total RNSs and larger diameters than the AO clamp group. Propensity score‐matched analysis included 37 patients in each clamp group. The median warm ischemia times of the AV and AO clamps were 25 and 22 min, respectively, with no significant difference. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in the amount of blood loss, rate of acute kidney injury (AKI), or renal function at 1, 3, or 12 months post‐RAPN.ConclusionCompared with the AO clamp, the AV clamp did not have a detrimental impact on blood loss or renal dysfunction. Consequently, AV clamps may be considered for patients presenting with moderate‐to‐high‐complexity RNSs.
期刊介绍:
International Journal of Urology is the official English language journal of the Japanese Urological Association, publishing articles of scientific excellence in urology. Submissions of papers from all countries are considered for publication. All manuscripts are subject to peer review and are judged on the basis of their contribution of original data and ideas or interpretation.