4.4 Article

Perinephric Fat Thickness Is an Independent Predictor of Operative Complexity During Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY
卷 28, 期 5, 页码 587-591

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/end.2013.0647

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose: Obesity is often categorized by body mass index (BMI), but abdominal wall and visceral fat quantity vary with equivalent BMI. This study compares multiple fat measurements as predictors of operative complexity during robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). Because perinephric fat around the kidney impacts the operative field, it is expected to be a superior predictor of complexity. Patients and Methods: Consecutive RAPN cases were used for multivariate analysis of the association between fat mass (BMI; measurements of abdominal wall fat in anterior, posterior, posterolateral, and lateral orientation, and perinephric fat in anterior, posterior, medial, and lateral orientation) and complexity metrics: Operative time and estimated blood loss (EBL). Adjustments were made for age, sex, tumor side, nephrometry score, comorbidities, and abdominal surgery. Results: Among 53 patients undergoing RAPN, perinephric fat measurements were independently associated with increased EBL and operative time. For each 1-mm increase in medial perinephric fat, EBL increased 24 mL (95% confidence interval [CI] 13-34 mL) and operative time increased 3.3 minutes (95% CI 1.0-5.7 min). For each 1-mm increase in posterior perinephric fat, the EBL and operative time increases were 19 mL (95% CI 8.1-30 mL) and 3.3 minutes (95% CI 1.0-5.6 min). Abdominal wall fat was not associated with operative time or EBL. Conclusion: Perinephric fat thickness, particularly medial and posterior fat, is associated with increased EBL and operative time during RAPN, independent of BMI and nephrometry score. These data may be helpful for preoperative risk assessment and counseling and could be incorporated in future complexity scores.

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