4.4 Article

Chronic renal insufficiency after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy for pathologic T1a lesions

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 337-341

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/end.2007.0240

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To report the prevalence of new-onset renal insufficiency in patients undergoing laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) as compared to laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) for pathologic T-1a lesions. Patients and Methods: Forty-eight patients and 37 patients with a normal contralateral kidney, preoperative creatinine (Cr) concentration <2 mg/dL, and tumors <4 cm in size underwent LPN and LRN, respectively. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was estimated using an abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation. Cr concentrations and GFR values were analyzed in patients undergoing LPN or LRN. Statistical analysis was performed with two-tailed t-test assuming unequal variances, to establish significance by P < 0.05. Results: Preoperative Cr and GFR was equivalent in the LPN and LRN groups (0.9 mg/dL and 90 mL/min). At last follow-up (mean 205 and 233 days in the LPN and LRN groups, respectively) mean creatinine was 1.03 +/- 0.3 mg/dL v 1.4 mg/dL +/- 0.3 (P = 0.0002). Estimated GFR was 79 +/- 22 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) v 55 +/- 14 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) (range 31-91 mL/min per 1.73 m(2); P < .0001) in the LPN and LRN groups, respectively. One patient in the LPN group and three patients in the LRN group had clinical renal insufficiency as defined by Cr >2.0 mg/dL. Subclinical renal insufficiency (Cr < 2.0, but calculated GFR <60 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)) was present in 57% of the LRN patients v 15% of the LPN patients. Conclusions: LPN preserves renal function more effectively than LRN for pathologic T-1a lesions. Subclinical renal insufficiency (GFR <60 mL/min per 1.73 m2) was present in the majority of patients undergoing radical nephrectomy in our series. Importantly, this series included the use of warm ischemia in all cases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据