4.5 Article

Renal function and oncologic outcomes in nephron sparing surgery for renal masses in solitary kidneys

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 343-348

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-010-0576-9

关键词

Solitary kidney; Nephron sparing surgery; Partial nephrectomy; Glomerular filtration rate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With low life expectancy rates in hemodialysis patients, the preservation of renal parenchyma must be weighed against the oncological outcomes in considering partial nephrectomy (PN) in solitary kidneys. The main objective of this study was to assess the oncologic and functional outcomes after PN in patients with solitary kidneys. A retrospective analysis of the Columbia University Medical Center Urologic Oncology database found 38 patients who underwent PN in the setting of a solitary kidney from 1988-2008. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) was defined as GFR of < 60 cc/min/1.73 m(2). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and local recurrence-free survival. The study group was followed for a median of 29 months, with a mean age of 63.2 years (range 35-83). Only one patient required postoperative long-term hemodialysis. Two out of 38 patients had a Clavien III postoperative complication. Twenty-one (55.3%) of the patients had preoperative CKD, while 29 (76%) patients had CKD postoperatively. Those who had CKD at the most recent follow-up had significantly larger tumors removed (P < 0.05). Of the 32 patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC), 6 (18.8%) had a local recurrence at a median 32.6 months. The 5-year overall, disease-specific, and recurrence-free survival rates were 59.6, 77.5, and 45.7%, respectively. PN in the setting of a solitary kidney poses difficult challenges for surgical and clinical management. Nephron sparing surgery for the treatment of RCC is feasible with low surgical complication rates, satisfactory disease-specific survival rates, and acceptable preservation of renal function.

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