Journal Article

Transperitoneal vs retroperitoneal minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: comparison of perioperative outcomes and functional follow-up in a large multi-institutional cohort (The RECORD 2 Project)

Siracusano Salvatore, Diminutto Alberto, Gontero Paolo, Minervini, Andrea, Ficarra Vincenzo, Porreca Angelo, Terrone Carlo, Grosso Gaetano, Polara, Andrea, Schiavina Riccardo, Simeone, Claudio, Villari Donata, Furlan, Maria, Bove Pierluigi, Costantini Elisabetta, Roscigno, Marco, Ferro Matteo, Di Maida Fabrizio, Da Pozzo Luigi, Artibani Walter, Berardinelli, Francesco, Fiori Cristian, Larcher Alessandro, Rizzetto Riccardo, Selli Cesare, Li Marzi Vincenzo, Mari, Andrea, Trombetta, Carlo, Carini, Marco, Serni Sergio, Montorsi, Francesco, Marra Giancarlo, Rocco, Bernardo, Celia, Antonio, Simonato Alchiede, Volpe Alessandro, Falsaperla Mario, Tellini Riccardo, Vespasiani Giuseppe, Schips Luigi, Longo, Nicola, Porpiglia Francesco, Antonelli Alessandro, Altieri Vincenzo, Capitanio Umberto, Brunocilla Eugenio, Amparore Daniele

2021

Overview

BackgroundAim of this study was to evaluate and compare perioperative outcomes of transperitoneal (TP) and retroperitoneal (TR) approaches in a multi-institutional cohort of minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MI-PN).Material and methodsAll consecutive patients undergone MI-PN for clinical T1 renal tumors at 26 Italian centers (RECORd2 project) between 01/2013 and 12/2016 were evaluated, collecting the pre-, intra-, and postoperative data. The patients were then stratified according to the surgical approach, TP or RP. A 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching was performed to obtain homogeneous cohorts, considering the age, gender, baseline eGFR, surgical indication, clinical diameter, and PADUA score.Results1669 patients treated with MI-PN were included in the study, 1256 and 413 undergoing TP and RP, respectively. After 1:1 PS matching according to the surgical access, 413 patients were selected from TP group to be compared with the 413 RP patients. Concerning intraoperative variables, no differences were found between the two groups in terms of surgical approach (lap/robot), extirpative technique (enucleation vs standard PN), hilar clamping, and ischemia time. Conversely, the TP group recorded a shorter median operative time in comparison with the RP group (115 vs 150 min), with a higher occurrence of intraoperative overall, 21 (5.0%) vs 9 (2.1%); p = 0.03, and surgical complications, 18 (4.3%) vs 7 (1.7%); p = 0.04. Concerning postoperative variables, the two groups resulted comparable in terms of complications, positive surgical margins and renal function, even if the RP group recorded a shorter median drainage duration and hospital length of stay (3 vs 2 for both variables), p < 0.0001.ConclusionsThe results of this study suggest that both TP and RP are feasible approaches when performing MI-PN, irrespectively from tumor location or surgical complexity. Notwithstanding longer operative times, RP seems to have a slighter intraoperative complication rate with earlier postoperative recovery when compared with TP.

• Publisher: Springer Nature B.V
• Subject: Comorbidity / Endoscopy / Kidney cancer / Patients / Surgery / Surgical outcomes / Tumors