Journal
EJSO
Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 80-87Publisher
ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2011.09.035
Keywords
Renal cell carcinoma; Partial nephrectomy; Laparoscopy; Complication; Outcome
Funding
- University of Montreal Health Centre
- Fonds de la Recherche en Sante du Quebec
- University of Montreal Department of Surgery
- University of Montreal Health Centre (CHUM) Foundation
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Background: To examine the use of open partial nephrectomy (OPN) and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN), as well as intraoperative and postoperative morbidity. Materials and methods: A retrospective cohort analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample for years 1998-2007. Patients with non-metastatic kidney cancer who underwent OPN or LPN were identified. Propensity-based matching was performed to adjust for potential baseline differences between the two groups. The rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications, blood transfusions, length of stay, and in-hospital mortality were assessed for both procedures. Results: Overall, 7990 (93.9%) and 523 (6.1%) patients underwent OPN and LPN, respectively. Use of LPN increased 19-fold over the study period (P < 0.001). For OPN and LPN respectively, the following rates were recorded: blood transfusions, 9.3 vs. 3.8% (P < 0.001); intraoperative complications, 2.9 vs. 1.5% (P = 0.06); postoperative complications, 15.4 vs. 11.3% (P = 0.01); length of stay >= 5 days, 46.7 vs. 20.8% (P < 0.001); in-hospital mortality, 0.4 vs. 0.4% (P = 0.98). In multivariable logistic regression analyses, LPN patients were less likely to have a blood transfusion (odds ratio [OR]: 0.40, P < 0.001), to experience any postoperative complication (OR: 0.74, P = 0.03), and to be hospitalized for more than 5 days (OR: 0.32, P < 0.001). Post-propensity score matched analyses revealed virtually the same results. Conclusions: After adjustment for potential selection biases, LPN is associated with fewer adverse outcomes than OPN. However, the current results should be interpreted with caution, given the lack of tumor characteristics. Furthermore, statistical adjustment is not a substitute for a needed randomized trial. Crown Copyright (C) 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available