Tobias Klatte1, Vincenzo Ficarra2, Christian Gratzke3, Jihad Kaouk4, Alexander Kutikov5, Veronica Macchi6, Alexandre Mottrie7, Francesco Porpiglia8, James Porter9, Craig G Rogers10, Paul Russo11, R Houston Thompson12, Robert G Uzzo5, Christopher G Wood13, Inderbir S Gill14. 1. Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: tobias.klatte@gmx.de. 2. Department of Urology, University of Udine, Udine, Italy. 3. Department of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany. 4. Center for Advanced Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery, Glickman Urologic and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 5. Department of Urological Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 6. Centre for Mechanics of Biological Materials, University of Padua, Padua, Italy. 7. OLV Robotic Surgery Institute, Aalst, Belgium. 8. Department of Urology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital-Orbassano, University of Turin, Turin, Italy. 9. Swedish Urology Group, Seattle, WA, USA. 10. Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA. 11. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 12. Department of Urology, Mayo Medical School and Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 13. Department of Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 14. University of Southern California Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: A detailed understanding of renal surgical anatomy is necessary to optimize preoperative planning and operative technique and provide a basis for improved outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the literature regarding pertinent surgical anatomy of the kidney and related structures, nephrometry scoring systems, and current surgical strategies for partial nephrectomy (PN). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A literature review was conducted. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Surgical renal anatomy fundamentally impacts PN surgery. The renal artery divides into anterior and posterior divisions, from which approximately five segmental terminal arteries originate. The renal veins are not terminal. Variations in the vascular and lymphatic channels are common; thus, concurrent lymphadenectomy is not routinely indicated during PN for cT1 renal masses in the setting of clinically negative lymph nodes. Renal-protocol contrast-enhanced computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging is used for standard imaging. Anatomy-based nephrometry scoring systems allow standardized academic reporting of tumor characteristics and predict PN outcomes (complications, remnant function, possibly histology). Anatomy-based novel surgical approaches may reduce ischemic time during PN; these include early unclamping, segmental clamping, tumor-specific clamping (zero ischemia), and unclamped PN. Cancer cure after PN relies on complete resection, which can be achieved by thin margins. Post-PN renal function is impacted by kidney quality, remnant quantity, and ischemia type and duration. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical renal anatomy underpins imaging, nephrometry scoring systems, and vascular control techniques that reduce global renal ischemia and may impact post-PN function. A contemporary ideal PN excises the tumor with a thin negative margin, delicately secures the tumor bed to maximize vascularized remnant parenchyma, and minimizes global ischemia to the renal remnant with minimal complications. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report we review renal surgical anatomy. Renal mass imaging allows detailed delineation of the anatomy and vasculature and permits nephrometry scoring, and thus precise, patient-specific surgical planning. Novel off-clamp techniques have been developed that may lead to improved outcomes.
CONTEXT: A detailed understanding of renal surgical anatomy is necessary to optimize preoperative planning and operative technique and provide a basis for improved outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the literature regarding pertinent surgical anatomy of the kidney and related structures, nephrometry scoring systems, and current surgical strategies for partial nephrectomy (PN). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A literature review was conducted. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Surgical renal anatomy fundamentally impacts PN surgery. The renal artery divides into anterior and posterior divisions, from which approximately five segmental terminal arteries originate. The renal veins are not terminal. Variations in the vascular and lymphatic channels are common; thus, concurrent lymphadenectomy is not routinely indicated during PN for cT1 renal masses in the setting of clinically negative lymph nodes. Renal-protocol contrast-enhanced computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging is used for standard imaging. Anatomy-based nephrometry scoring systems allow standardized academic reporting of tumor characteristics and predict PN outcomes (complications, remnant function, possibly histology). Anatomy-based novel surgical approaches may reduce ischemic time during PN; these include early unclamping, segmental clamping, tumor-specific clamping (zero ischemia), and unclamped PN. Cancer cure after PN relies on complete resection, which can be achieved by thin margins. Post-PN renal function is impacted by kidney quality, remnant quantity, and ischemia type and duration. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical renal anatomy underpins imaging, nephrometry scoring systems, and vascular control techniques that reduce global renal ischemia and may impact post-PN function. A contemporary ideal PN excises the tumor with a thin negative margin, delicately secures the tumor bed to maximize vascularized remnant parenchyma, and minimizes global ischemia to the renal remnant with minimal complications. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report we review renal surgical anatomy. Renal mass imaging allows detailed delineation of the anatomy and vasculature and permits nephrometry scoring, and thus precise, patient-specific surgical planning. Novel off-clamp techniques have been developed that may lead to improved outcomes.
Authors: A Breda; S V Stepanian; J Liao; J S Lam; G Guazzoni; M Stifelman; K Perry; A Celia; G Breda; P Fornara; S Jackman; A Rosales; J Palou; M Grasso; V Pansadoro; V Disanto; F Porpiglia; C Milani; C Abbou; R Gaston; G Janetschek; N A Soomro; J de la Rosette; M P Laguna; P G Schulam Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-05-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Sean P Stroup; Kerrin Palazzi; Ryan P Kopp; Reza Mehrazin; Michael Santomauro; Seth A Cohen; Anthony L Patterson; James O L'Esperance; Ithaar H Derweesh Journal: Urology Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Raed A Azhar; Andre Luis de Castro Abreu; Eric Broxham; Andy Sherrod; Yanling Ma; Jie Cai; Tania S Gill; Mihir Desai; Inderbir S Gill Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-08-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Casey K Ng; Inderbir S Gill; Mukul B Patil; Andrew J Hung; Andre K Berger; Andre Luis de Castro Abreu; Masahiko Nakamoto; Manuel S Eisenberg; Osamu Ukimura; Duraiyah Thangathurai; Monish Aron; Mihir M Desai Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-08-31 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jeffrey K Mullins; Jihad H Kaouk; Sam Bhayani; Craig G Rogers; Michael D Stifelman; Phillip M Pierorazio; Youssef S Tanagho; Shahab P Hillyer; Bartosz F Kaczmarek; Yichun Chiu; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-10-18 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: James J Hsieh; Mark P Purdue; Sabina Signoretti; Charles Swanton; Laurence Albiges; Manuela Schmidinger; Daniel Y Heng; James Larkin; Vincenzo Ficarra Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 52.329