Literature DB >> 26514977

Comparison of Postoperative Complications and Mortality Between Laparoscopic and Percutaneous Local Tumor Ablation for T1a Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Population-based Study.

Vincent Trudeau1, Alessandro Larcher2, Katharina Boehm3, Paolo Dell'Oglio2, Maxine Sun4, Zhe Tian5, Alberto Briganti6, Shahrokh F Shariat7, Claudio Jeldres8, Pierre I Karakiewicz9.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate potential differences in local tumor ablation (LTA) perioperative outcomes between the percutaneous LTA (pLTA) and the laparoscopic LTA (lapLTA) approaches.
METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare, we identified all patients diagnosed with T1a renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who underwent either pLTA or lapLTA between 2000 and 2009. Overall complications at 30 days and mortality at 90 days were examined for both groups. A multivariable logistic regression model was fitted to evaluate the effect of the approach on perioperative complications. A second model was fitted to test for associations between patient or tumor characteristics and type of LTA approach.
RESULTS: Overall, 516 patients diagnosed with T1a RCC were identified. Of those, 289 (56%) were treated with pLTA and 227 (44%) were treated with lapLTA. LapLTA-treated patients were younger (median 76 vs 78, P < .001) and healthier (median Charlson comorbidity index 2.1 vs 2.7, P = .03) than their counterpart. After pLTA and lapLTA, overall complication rates were 21% and 25%, respectively (P = .3). Similarly, 90-day mortality rates did not differ between the two groups (P = 1). After adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, LTA approach was not associated with perioperative complications (odds ratio: 1.38, P = .1). However, older and sicker patients were less likely to be treated with lapLTA (both ≤ 0.04).
CONCLUSION: No differences in 30-day overall complications or 90-day mortality rates were detected between lapLTA and pLTA for T1a RCC. pLTA was more frequently used in older and sicker individuals. Further prospective studies comparing both procedures should be undertaken.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26514977     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.08.043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  4 in total

Review 1.  Contemporary Status of Percutaneous Ablation for the Small Renal Mass.

Authors:  Benjamin J Shin; Jeffrey Forris Beecham Chick; S William Stavropoulos
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Canadian Urological Association guideline for followup of patients after treatment of non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Wassim Kassouf; Leonardo L Monteiro; Darrel E Drachenberg; Adrian S Fairey; Antonio Finelli; Anil Kapoor; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Michael J Leveridge; Nicholas E Power; Frederic Pouliot; Ricardo A Rendon; Robert Sabbagh; Alan I So; Simon Tanguay; Rodney H Breau
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2018-05-31       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 3.  Laparoscopic cryoablation vs. percutaneous cryoablation for treatment of small renal masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kehua Jiang; Kun Tang; Xiaolin Guo; Haoran Liu; Hongbo Chen; Zhiqiang Chen; Hua Xu; Zhangqun Ye
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-04-18

Review 4.  Laparoscopic ultrasonography: The wave of the future in renal cell carcinoma?

Authors:  Bitian Liu; Yunhong Zhan; Xiaonan Chen; Qingpeng Xie; Bin Wu
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2018 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.628

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.