OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between nephrometry score (NS) and prolonged warm ischemia time (WIT) in patients undergoing robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) for clinically localized renal masses. METHODS: We queried our prospectively maintained kidney cancer database to identify all patients undergoing RPN for localized tumors from 2007-2012. Patient and tumor characteristics were compared between complexity groups using analysis of variance and chi square tests. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between NS complexity and warm ischemia >30 minutes. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-five patients (mean age, 59 ± 11 years; mean Charlson comorbidity index, 1.0 ± 1.3) undergoing RPN under warm ischemia for clinically localized renal tumors (mean tumor size, 3.1 ± 1.5 cm; mean NS, 6.8 ± 1.8) met inclusion criteria and had NS available. Stratified by complexity, groups differed with respect to age at surgery, tumor size, proximity to the hilum, collecting system entry, estimated blood loss, and operative time (all P values ≤.05). Significant differences in mean WIT were observed when comparing low (19.4 ± 12.1 minutes), intermediate (28.6 ± 12.8 minutes), and high (36.1 ± 13.7 minutes) NS complexity groups (P <.0001). Adjusting for confounders, patients with intermediate (odds ratio, 2.1; confidence interval, 1.2-3.9) and high (odds ratio, 3.7; confidence interval, 1.1-11.8) NS complexity were more likely to require prolonged WIT when compared with patients with low complexity tumors. CONCLUSION: In our large institutional cohort, quantification of anatomic complexity using the NS is associated with WIT >30 minutes in patients undergoing RPN for localized renal tumors. This provides further evidence that standardized reporting of tumor anatomic complexity affords meaningful outcome comparisons.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between nephrometry score (NS) and prolonged warm ischemia time (WIT) in patients undergoing robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) for clinically localized renal masses. METHODS: We queried our prospectively maintained kidney cancer database to identify all patients undergoing RPN for localized tumors from 2007-2012. Patient and tumor characteristics were compared between complexity groups using analysis of variance and chi square tests. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between NS complexity and warm ischemia >30 minutes. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-five patients (mean age, 59 ± 11 years; mean Charlson comorbidity index, 1.0 ± 1.3) undergoing RPN under warm ischemia for clinically localized renal tumors (mean tumor size, 3.1 ± 1.5 cm; mean NS, 6.8 ± 1.8) met inclusion criteria and had NS available. Stratified by complexity, groups differed with respect to age at surgery, tumor size, proximity to the hilum, collecting system entry, estimated blood loss, and operative time (all P values ≤.05). Significant differences in mean WIT were observed when comparing low (19.4 ± 12.1 minutes), intermediate (28.6 ± 12.8 minutes), and high (36.1 ± 13.7 minutes) NS complexity groups (P <.0001). Adjusting for confounders, patients with intermediate (odds ratio, 2.1; confidence interval, 1.2-3.9) and high (odds ratio, 3.7; confidence interval, 1.1-11.8) NS complexity were more likely to require prolonged WIT when compared with patients with low complexity tumors. CONCLUSION: In our large institutional cohort, quantification of anatomic complexity using the NS is associated with WIT >30 minutes in patients undergoing RPN for localized renal tumors. This provides further evidence that standardized reporting of tumor anatomic complexity affords meaningful outcome comparisons.
Authors: Jay Simhan; Marc C Smaldone; Kevin J Tsai; Daniel J Canter; Tianyu Li; Alexander Kutikov; Rosalia Viterbo; David Y T Chen; Richard E Greenberg; Robert G Uzzo Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-05-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Brian R Lane; Paul Russo; Robert G Uzzo; Adrian V Hernandez; Stephen A Boorjian; R Houston Thompson; Amr F Fergany; Thomas E Love; Steven C Campbell Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-12-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michael A White; Georges-Pascal Haber; Riccardo Autorino; Rakesh Khanna; Adrian V Hernandez; Sylvain Forest; Bo Yang; Fatih Altunrende; Robert J Stein; Jihad H Kaouk Journal: Urology Date: 2011-02-18 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: R Houston Thompson; Brian R Lane; Christine M Lohse; Bradley C Leibovich; Amr Fergany; Igor Frank; Inderbir S Gill; Michael L Blute; Steven C Campbell Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Frank Becker; Hein Van Poppel; Oliver W Hakenberg; Christian Stief; Inderbir Gill; Giorgio Guazzoni; Francesco Montorsi; Paul Russo; Michael Stöckle Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Nicole Wake; Temitope Rude; Stella K Kang; Michael D Stifelman; James F Borin; Daniel K Sodickson; William C Huang; Hersh Chandarana Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2017-05
Authors: Aaron M Potretzke; Theodora A Potretzke; B Alexander Knight; Joel Vetter; Alyssa M Park; Grecori Anderson; Sam B Bhayani; R Sherburne Figenshau Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-03-21 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Sangjun Yoo; Dalsan You; In Gab Jeong; Bumsik Hong; Jun Hyuk Hong; Choung Soo Kim; Hanjong Ahn; Cheryn Song Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 2.153