4.4 Article

Laparoscopic Radiofrequency Ablation of Renal Tumors: 32-Month Mean Follow-up Results of 106 Patients

Journal

UROLOGY
Volume 77, Issue 4, Pages 798-802

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.10.014

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE To report our experience of laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (RFA) on patients with renal tumors. RFA has been increasingly applied in the management of small renal tumors. However, it was performed mostly via percutaneous approach, with limited cases and a short follow-up period. METHODS From February 2006 to March 2008, laparoscopic RFA was performed on 106 renal tumors (size range: 0.9-5.5 cm) in 106 selected patients (74 men and 32 women, age range: 25-81 years). Initial contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) examination was performed seven days after the procedure, with subsequent CT assessment at three months, six months, and every six months thereafter. Serum creatinine measurement was conducted along with each time CT examination. RESULTS The mean follow-up period was 32 months (range: 12-48). All 106 tumors were biopsied before RFA, of which 90 were diagnosed as renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (84.90%). There was one incomplete ablation. One case with radiographic local recurrence was then proved by pathologic analysis of the nephrectomy specimen to have no cancer cells. The local tumor control rate was 98.1% (104/106). Of the 90 RCC cases, the disease-free survival rate was 97.8% (88/90); both the cancer-specific and the overall survival rate were 100%. No death or renal failure after the procedure has yet been found. CONCLUSIONS Our results showed that the laparoscopic RFA on small renal mass was safe, with outcomes of patients comparable with those by partial nephrectomy and percutaneous RFA. Further research and a longer follow-up period are needed to confirm our results. UROLOGY 77: 798-802, 2011. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available