BACKGROUND: Surgical excision remains the core to the management of localised renal cancer and several studies have evaluated the safety and clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and other recently introduced interventions for the localised disease. OBJECTIVES: To identify and review the evidence from randomised trials comparing different surgical interventions in localised renal cell carcinoma. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomised or quasi randomised trials comparing various surgical interventions in the management of adults with surgically resectable localised renal cancer. RCTs were identified by searching The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3, 2009), MEDLINE (Silver Platter, from 1966 to August 2009), EMBASE via Ovid (from 1980 to August 2009), and a number of other data bases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were assessed for eligibility and quality, and data from published trials were extracted by two reviewers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: No randomised trials were identified meeting the inclusion criteria reporting on the comparison between open radical nephrectomy with laparoscopic approach or new modalities of treatment such as radiofrequency or cryoablation. Three randomised controlled trials compared the different laparoscopic approaches to nephrectomy (transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal) and found no statistical difference in operative or perioperative outcomes between the two treatment groups. There were several non-randomised and retrospective case series reporting various advantages of laparoscopic renal cancer surgery such as less blood loss, early recovery and shorter hospital stay AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The main source of evidence for the current practice of laparoscopic excision of renal cancer is drawn from case series, small retrospective studies and very few small randomised controlled trials. The results and conclusions of these studies must therefore be interpreted with caution.
BACKGROUND: Surgical excision remains the core to the management of localised renal cancer and several studies have evaluated the safety and clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and other recently introduced interventions for the localised disease. OBJECTIVES: To identify and review the evidence from randomised trials comparing different surgical interventions in localised renal cell carcinoma. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomised or quasi randomised trials comparing various surgical interventions in the management of adults with surgically resectable localised renal cancer. RCTs were identified by searching The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3, 2009), MEDLINE (Silver Platter, from 1966 to August 2009), EMBASE via Ovid (from 1980 to August 2009), and a number of other data bases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were assessed for eligibility and quality, and data from published trials were extracted by two reviewers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: No randomised trials were identified meeting the inclusion criteria reporting on the comparison between open radical nephrectomy with laparoscopic approach or new modalities of treatment such as radiofrequency or cryoablation. Three randomised controlled trials compared the different laparoscopic approaches to nephrectomy (transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal) and found no statistical difference in operative or perioperative outcomes between the two treatment groups. There were several non-randomised and retrospective case series reporting various advantages of laparoscopic renal cancer surgery such as less blood loss, early recovery and shorter hospital stay AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The main source of evidence for the current practice of laparoscopic excision of renal cancer is drawn from case series, small retrospective studies and very few small randomised controlled trials. The results and conclusions of these studies must therefore be interpreted with caution.
Authors: G Malietzis; L Monzon; J Hand; H Wasan; E Leen; M Abel; A Muhammad; P Price; P Abel Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2013-02-12 Impact factor: 3.039