PURPOSE: This multiinstitutional report assesses the oncologic efficacy of hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (HLRN) compared with open radical nephrectomy (ORN) in patients with localized clear cell renal-cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed the data from 2561 patients who underwent radical nephrectomy at 26 institutions in Korea between June 1998 and December 2007 for localized RCC. One hundred ninety-seven patients with clear cell RCC in the HLRN group were compared with 917 patients with clear cell RCC in the ORN group. To evaluate the technical adequacy and oncologic outcome, we compared the operative time, estimated blood loss, and 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 36 months for the HLRN group and 27 months for the ORN group. The operative time was significantly longer in the HLRN group than in the ORN group (206.8 +/- 68.7 minutes vs. 179.1 +/- 61.5 minutes, p < 0.001), and blood loss was significantly lower in the HLRN group than in the ORN group (311.6 +/- 238.7 mL vs. 372.4 +/- 367.3 mL, p = 0.003). There was no significant difference in pathologic T stage and Fuhrman's nuclear grade in the two groups. No statistically significant difference was found in the 5-year overall (91.2% vs. 90.3%, p = 0.286) and disease-specific (95.2% vs. 92.1%, p = 0.222) survival rates between the HLRN and ORN groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the longer operative time, HLRN was an effective and less-invasive treatment option for localized clear cell RCC. HLRN could achieve cancer control similar to that obtained with ORN.
PURPOSE: This multiinstitutional report assesses the oncologic efficacy of hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (HLRN) compared with open radical nephrectomy (ORN) in patients with localized clear cell renal-cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed the data from 2561 patients who underwent radical nephrectomy at 26 institutions in Korea between June 1998 and December 2007 for localized RCC. One hundred ninety-seven patients with clear cell RCC in the HLRN group were compared with 917 patients with clear cell RCC in the ORN group. To evaluate the technical adequacy and oncologic outcome, we compared the operative time, estimated blood loss, and 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 36 months for the HLRN group and 27 months for the ORN group. The operative time was significantly longer in the HLRN group than in the ORN group (206.8 +/- 68.7 minutes vs. 179.1 +/- 61.5 minutes, p < 0.001), and blood loss was significantly lower in the HLRN group than in the ORN group (311.6 +/- 238.7 mL vs. 372.4 +/- 367.3 mL, p = 0.003). There was no significant difference in pathologic T stage and Fuhrman's nuclear grade in the two groups. No statistically significant difference was found in the 5-year overall (91.2% vs. 90.3%, p = 0.286) and disease-specific (95.2% vs. 92.1%, p = 0.222) survival rates between the HLRN and ORN groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the longer operative time, HLRN was an effective and less-invasive treatment option for localized clear cell RCC. HLRN could achieve cancer control similar to that obtained with ORN.