4.5 Article

Achievement of trifecta in minimally invasive partial nephrectomy correlates with functional preservation of operated kidney: a multi-institutional assessment using MAG3 renal scan

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 34, 期 7, 页码 925-931

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-015-1726-x

关键词

Trifecta of outcomes; Partial nephrectomy; Robotic; Minimally invasive; Functional outcomes; MAG3

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To validate and compare the values of MIC and trifecta as predictors of operated kidney functional preservation in a multi-institutional cohort of patients undergoing minimally invasive PN. We retrospectively reviewed records of consecutive cases of minimally invasive PN performed for cT1 renal masses in 4 centers from 2009 to 2013. Inclusion criteria consisted of availability of a renal scan obtained within 2 weeks prior to surgery and follow-up renal scan 3-6 months after the surgery. The primary endpoint of the study was to compare the degree of ipsilateral renal function preservation assessed by MAG3 renal scan in relation to achievement of MIC and trifecta. Total of 351 patients met our inclusion criteria. The rates of trifecta achievement for cT1a and cT1b tumors were 78.9 and 60.6 %, respectively. The rate of MIC achievement for cT1a tumors and cT1b tumors was 60.3 and 31.7 %, respectively. On multivariable linear regression model, only the degree of tumor complexity assessed by R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score [coefficient B -1.8 (-2.7, -0.9); p < 0.0001] and the achievement of trifecta [coefficient B 6.1 (2.4,9.8); p = 0.014] or MIC (coefficient B 7.2 (3.8,0.6); p < 0.0001) were significant clinical factors predicting ipsilateral split function preservation. Achievement of both MIC and trifecta is associated with higher proportion of split renal function preservation for cT1 tumors after minimally invasive PN. Thus, these outcome measures can be regarded not only as markers of surgical quality, but also as reliable surrogates for predicting functional outcome in the operated kidney.

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

4.5
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