1.
MacLennan S, Imamura M, Lapitan MC, Omar MI, Lam TBL, HilvanoCabungcal AM, et al. Systematic review of oncological outcomes following
surgical management of localised renal cancer. Eur Urol. 2012
May;61(5):972–93.
2.
Wu Z, Li M, Liu B, Cai C, Ye H, Lv C, et al. Robotic versus open partial
nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS One.
2014;9(4):e94878.
3.
Schiff JD, Palese M, Vaughan ED, Sosa RE, Coll D, Del Pizzo JJ.
Laparoscopic vs open partial nephrectomy in consecutive patients: the
Cornell experience. BJU Int. 2005 Oct;96(6):811–4.
4.
Choi JE, You JH, Kim DK, Rha KH, Lee SH. Comparison of perioperative
outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015 May;67(5):891–901.
5.
Hew MN, Baseskioglu B, Barwari K, Axwijk PH, Can C, Horenblas S, et al.
Critical appraisal of the PADUA classification and assessment of the
23
R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score in patients undergoing partial nephrectomy.
J Urol. 2011 Jul;186(1):42–6.
6.
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 Sep;182(3):844–53.
7.
Gupta R, Tori M, Babitz SK, Tobert CM, Anema JG, Noyes SL, et al.
Comparison of RENAL, PADUA, CSA, and PAVP Nephrometry Scores in
Predicting Functional Outcomes After Partial Nephrectomy. Urology. 2019
Feb;124:160–7.
8.
Broughton GJ, Clark PE, Barocas DA, Cookson MS, Smith JA, Herrell SD,
et al. Tumour size, tumour complexity, and surgical approach are
associated with nephrectomy type in small renal cortical tumours treated
electively. BJU Int. 2012 Jun;109(11):1607–13.
9.
Larcher A, Muttin F, Peyronnet B, De Naeyer G, Khene Z-E, Dell’Oglio P,
et al. The Learning Curve for Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy: Impact
of Surgical Experience on Perioperative Outcomes. Eur Urol. 2019
Feb;75(2):253–6.
24
10. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of surgical
complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients
and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205–13.
11. Levey AS, Coresh J, Balk E, Kausz AT, Levin A, Steffes MW, et al.
National Kidney Foundation practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease:
evaluation, classification, and stratification. Ann Intern Med. 2003 Jul
15;139(2):137–47.
12. Abdel Raheem A, Alatawi A, Kim DK, Sheikh A, Alabdulaali I, Han WK, et
al. Outcomes of high-complexity renal tumours with a Preoperative Aspects
and Dimensions Used for an Anatomical (PADUA) score of ≥10 after robotassisted partial nephrectomy with a median 46.5-month follow-up: a tertiary
centre experience. BJU Int. 2016 Nov;118(5):770–8.
13. Hinata N, Fujisawa M. Robot Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: Technique and
Outcomes. In: Chan ES, Matsuda T, editors. Endourology Progress:
Technique, technology and training [Internet]. Singapore: Springer; 2019
[cited 2021 Jan 18]. p. 117–26. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978981-13-3465-8_16
25
14. Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software “EZR”
for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013 Mar;48(3):452–8.
15. Shah PH, Moreira DM, Okhunov Z, Patel VR, Chopra S, Razmaria AA, et
al. Positive Surgical Margins Increase Risk of Recurrence after Partial
Nephrectomy for High Risk Renal Tumors. J Urol. 2016 Aug;196(2):327–
34.
16. Kim JK, Lee H, Oh JJ, Lee S, Hong SK, Lee SE, et al. Comparison of
robotic and open partial nephrectomy for highly complex renal tumors
(RENAL nephrometry score ≥10). Psutka SP, editor. PLOS ONE. 2019 Jan
10;14(1):e0210413.
17. Hennessey DB, Wei G, Moon D, Kinnear N, Bolton DM, Lawrentschuk N,
et al. Strategies for success: a multi-institutional study on robot-assisted
partial nephrectomy for complex renal lesions. BJU Int. 2018;121(S3):40–
7.
18. Minervini A, Campi R, Lane BR, De Cobelli O, Sanguedolce F,
Hatzichristodoulou G, et al. Impact of Resection Technique on
Perioperative Outcomes and Surgical Margins after Partial Nephrectomy
26
for Localized Renal Masses: A Prospective Multicenter Study. J Urol. 2020
Mar;203(3):496–504.
19. Kaczmarek BF, Sukumar S, Petros F, Trinh Q-D, Mander N, Chen R, et al.
Robotic ultrasound probe for tumor identification in robotic partial
nephrectomy: Initial series and outcomes. Int J Urol Off J Jpn Urol Assoc.
2013 Feb;20(2):172–6.
20. Checcucci E, Amparore D, Fiori C, Manfredi M, Ivano M, Di Dio M, et al.
3D imaging applications for robotic urologic surgery: an ESUT YAUWP
review. World J Urol. 2020 Apr;38(4):869–81.
21. Patel MN, Krane LS, Bhandari A, Laungani RG, Shrivastava A, Siddiqui
SA, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors larger than 4 cm.
Eur Urol. 2010 Feb;57(2):310–6.
22. Dulabon LM, Kaouk JH, Haber G-P, Berkman DS, Rogers CG, Petros F, et
al. Multi-institutional analysis of robotic partial nephrectomy for hilar versus
nonhilar lesions in 446 consecutive cases. Eur Urol. 2011 Mar;59(3):325–
30.
27
23. Autorino R, Khalifeh A, Laydner H, Samarasekera D, Rizkala E, Eyraud R,
et al. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for completely
endophytic renal masses: a single institution experience. BJU Int. 2014
May;113(5):762–8.
24. White MA, Haber G-P, 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 Apr;77(4):809–13.
25. Simhan J, Smaldone MC, Tsai KJ, Canter DJ, Li T, Kutikov A, et al.
Objective Measures of Renal Mass Anatomic Complexity Predict Rates of
Major Complications Following Partial Nephrectomy. Eur Urol. 2011
Oct;60(4):724–30.
26. Thompson RH, Lane BR, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, Fergany A, Frank I, et
al. Every minute counts when the renal hilum is clamped during partial
nephrectomy. Eur Urol. 2010 Sep;58(3):340–5.
27. Huang WC, Levey AS, Serio AM, Snyder M, Vickers AJ, Raj GV, et al.
Chronic kidney disease after nephrectomy in patients with renal cortical
28
tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2006 Sep;7(9):735–
40.
28. Furukawa J, Kanayama H, Azuma H, Inoue K, Kobayashi Y, Kashiwagi A,
et al. “Trifecta” outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a large
Japanese multicenter study. Int J Clin Oncol. 2020 Feb;25(2):347–53.
29. Kahn AE, Shumate AM, Ball CT, Thiel DD. Pre-operative factors that
predict trifecta and pentafecta in robotic assisted partial nephrectomy. J
Robot Surg. 2020 Feb;14(1):185–90.
30. Alcaraz A. Nephron-sparing surgery: some considerations regarding an
underused standard of care. Eur Urol. 2010 Sep;58(3):346–8.
29
Figure legend
Figure 1. Recurrence-free survival
Abbreviations: RFS, recurrence-free survival
Table 1 Patient characteristics
Variable
RNS <10 (n=299)
RNS ≥10 (n=49)
P value
Age (yr), median (IQR)
64 (54–71)
67 (58–72)
0.32
Sex, n (%)
Male
0.73
79 (26.4)
14 (28.6)
BMI (kg/m2), median (IQR)
23.9 (21.7–26.6)
24.9 (23.2–28.2)
0.06
ECOG-PS, median (IQR)
0 (0–0)
0 (0–0)
0.85
ASA score, median (IQR)
2 (1–2)
2 (1–2)
0.86
Tumor side, n (%)
Right
0.36
162 (54.2)
23 (46.9)
Solitary kidney, n (%)
5 (1.7)
2 (4.1)
0.26
Radiographic tumor size (cm),
median (IQR)
2.9 (2.2–3.6)
4.1 (2.8–4.5)
<0.01*
Preoperative
eGFR,
ml/min/1.73m (median, IQR)
69.4 (58.1–78.7)
63.3 (48.0–74.7)
0.033*
Preoperative serum creatinine,
mg/dl (median, IQR)
0.84 (0.72–0.97)
0.87 (0.75–1.16)
0.15
* indicates statistical significance with P < 0.05
Abbreviations: ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; BMI, body mass
index; ECOG-PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group – Performance Status;
eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; IQR, interquartile range; RNS,
RENAL nephrectomy score
Table 2 Operative and postoperative outcomes
RNS <10 (n=299)
RNS ≥10 (n=49)
Surgical approach, n (%)
P value
0.52
Transperitoneal
199 (66.6)
30 (61.2)
Retroperitoneal
100 (33.4)
19 (38.8)
Console time (min), median (IQR)
202 (168–250)
242 (196–282)
<0.01*
Estimated blood loss (ml), median (IQR)
10 (10–50)
10 (10–100)
<0.01*
Extraction weight (g), median (IQR)
24 (15–42.5)
51 (27–67)
<0.01*
WIT (min), median (IQR)
21 (18–25)
26 (23–30)
<0.01*
WIT ≥25 min, n (%)
70 (23.4)
25 (51.0)
<0.01*
Pathology results, n (%)
0.34
Malignant
278 (93.0)
48 (98.0)
Benign
21 (7.0)
1 (2.0)
pT3a
5 (1.7)
2 (4.1)
Positive surgical margins, n (%)
1 (0.3)
0 (0)
Surgeon’s experience (case), median
(IQR)
49 (21-89)
57 (32-96)
0.13
Overall complications, n (%)
32 (10.7)
10 (20.4)
0.061
Major (Clavien–Dindo ≥3) complications, n
(%)
17 (5.7)
8 (16.3)
0.018*
Pseudoaneurysm
8 (2.7)
3 (6.1)
Pneumothorax
6 (2.0)
0 (0)
Urine leakage
2 (0.7)
3 (6.1)
Others
1 (0.3)
2 (4.1)
217 (72.6)
20 (40.8)
List of major complications, n (%)
Trifecta achievement, n(%)
<0.01*
Length of stay (days), median (IQR)
10 (8–12)
10 (9–13)
* indicates statistical significance with P < 0.05. Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile
range; RNS, RENAL nephrectomy score; WIT, warm ischemia time
0.31
Table 3 Postoperative renal function and CKD upstage outcomes
Postoperative time
Outcome
1 week
1 month
3 months
1 year
3 years
5 years
RNS <10 (n=299)
RNS ≥10 (n=49)
P value
eGFR preservation (%),
83.6 (73.5–92.6)
median (IQR)
69.8 (63.5–80.0)
<0.01*
CKD upstage, n (%)
25 (51.0)
0.057
eGFR preservation (%),
86.0 (79.1–94.0)
median (IQR)
75.8 (64.8–83.1)
<0.01*
CKD upstage, n (%)
25 (52.1)
<0.01*
eGFR preservation (%),
86.2 (77.8–92.8)
median (IQR)
76.1 (66.7–81.4)
<0.01*
CKD upstage, n (%)
22 (46.8)
0.028*
eGFR preservation (%),
84.2 (77.6–91.5)
median (IQR)
74.5 (69.1–82.0)
<0.01*
CKD upstage, n (%)
23 (57.5)
<0.01*
eGFR preservation (%),
83.5 (76.4–92.7)
median (IQR)
77.7 (73.2–85.3)
0.22
CKD upstage, n (%)
6 (37.5)
0.58
eGFR preservation (%),
79.5 (75.1–89.0)
median (IQR)
76.0 (74.1–79.0)
0.20
CKD upstage, n (%)
1 (20)
108 (36.1)
81 (27.1)
87 (29.8)
71 (29.1)
51 (30.7)
26 (22.4)
* indicates statistical significance with P < 0.05
Abbreviations: CKD, chronic kidney disease; eGFR, estimated glomerular
filtration rate; IQR, interquartile range; RNS, RENAL nephrectomy score
100
Recurrence-free survival (%)
80
RENAL score
60
<10
≥10
40
20
20
40
60
80
Observation period (months)
100
...
論文の公開元へ
