4.6 Article

Laparoscopic Renal Cryoablation: 8-Year, Single Surgeon Outcomes

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 183, 期 3, 页码 889-895

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.11.041

关键词

kidney; kidney neoplasms; cryosurgery; laparoscopy; outcome assessment (health care)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We present 5 to 11-year (median 8) oncological outcomes after laparoscopic renal cryoablation. Materials and Methods: Between September 1997 and October 2008 we performed renal cryoablation in 340 patients, of whom 80 treated laparoscopically by a single surgeon before October 2003 had a minimum 5-year followup. Followup involved magnetic resonance imaging on postoperative day 1, at 3, 6 and 12 months, and annually thereafter. Cryolesion biopsy was performed at 6 months. All data were prospectively accrued. Results: In the 80 patients with minimum 5-year followup mean age was 66 years, mean tumor size was 2.3 cm (range 0.9 to 5.0), median American Society of Anesthesiologists score was 3 and mean body mass index was 28 kg/m(2). Five patients had local recurrence, 2 had locoregional recurrence with metastasis and 4 had distant metastasis without locoregional recurrence. Six patients died of cancer. In the 55 patients with biopsy proven renal cell cancer at a median followup of 93 months (range 60 to 132) 5-year overall, disease specific and disease-free survival rates were 84%, 92% and 81%, and 10-year rates were 51%, 83% and 78%, respectively. On multivariate analysis previous radical nephrectomy for RCC was the only significant predictor of disease-free and disease specific survival (p = 0.023 and 0.030, respectively). Conclusions: Laparoscopic renal cryoablation is effective oncological treatment for a renal mass in select patients. A disease specific survival rate of 92% at 5 years and 83% at 10 years is possible. Preceding radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma was the only independent factor predicting disease-free and disease specific survival.

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

4.6
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