Aaron M Potretzke1, Theodora A Potretzke2, B Alexander Knight3, Joel Vetter3, Alyssa M Park3, Grecori Anderson3, Sam B Bhayani3, R Sherburne Figenshau3. 1. Division of Urologic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 4960 Children's Place, Campus Box 8242, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. potretzkea@wudosis.wustl.edu. 2. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 3. Division of Urologic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 4960 Children's Place, Campus Box 8242, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare diameter as a continuous variable with categorical R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score (RNS) in predicting surgical outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients receiving RPN at our institution between July 2007 and June 2014 (n = 286). Three separate multivariate analyses were performed to assess the relationship between RNS components (R = radius, E = endophyticity, N = nearness to collecting system, L = location relative to polar lines), total RNS, and diameter as a continuous variable with operating time, warm ischemia time (WIT), and estimated blood loss (EBL). Each linear regression model's quality of fit to the data was assessed with coefficients of determination (R 2). RESULTS: Continuous tumor diameter and total RNS were each significantly correlated to operative time, EBL, and WIT (p < 0.001). Categorical R related to operative time (R = 2 vs. R = 1, p = 0.001; R = 3 vs. R = 1, p = 0.001) and WIT (R = 2 vs. R = 1, p = 0.003; R = 3 vs. R = 1, p = 0.016), but not to EBL. For each of these outcomes, diameter outperformed both R and total RNS, as assessed by R 2. Age, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and anterior versus posterior location did not correlate with surgical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this series of RPN from a high-volume center, surgical outcomes more closely related to tumor diameter than RNS. While RNS provides surgeons a standardized tool for preoperative planning of renal masses, tumor size may be employed as a more familiar measurement when counseling patients on potential outcomes.
PURPOSE: To compare diameter as a continuous variable with categorical R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score (RNS) in predicting surgical outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients receiving RPN at our institution between July 2007 and June 2014 (n = 286). Three separate multivariate analyses were performed to assess the relationship between RNS components (R = radius, E = endophyticity, N = nearness to collecting system, L = location relative to polar lines), total RNS, and diameter as a continuous variable with operating time, warm ischemia time (WIT), and estimated blood loss (EBL). Each linear regression model's quality of fit to the data was assessed with coefficients of determination (R 2). RESULTS:Continuous tumor diameter and total RNS were each significantly correlated to operative time, EBL, and WIT (p < 0.001). Categorical R related to operative time (R = 2 vs. R = 1, p = 0.001; R = 3 vs. R = 1, p = 0.001) and WIT (R = 2 vs. R = 1, p = 0.003; R = 3 vs. R = 1, p = 0.016), but not to EBL. For each of these outcomes, diameter outperformed both R and total RNS, as assessed by R 2. Age, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and anterior versus posterior location did not correlate with surgical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this series of RPN from a high-volume center, surgical outcomes more closely related to tumor diameter than RNS. While RNS provides surgeons a standardized tool for preoperative planning of renal masses, tumor size may be employed as a more familiar measurement when counseling patients on potential outcomes.
Authors: Scott Leslie; Inderbir S Gill; Andre Luis de Castro Abreu; Syed Rahmanuddin; Karanvir S Gill; Mike Nguyen; Andre K Berger; Alvin C Goh; Jie Cai; Vinay A Duddalwar; Monish Aron; Mihir M Desai Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 20.096
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: John M Hollingsworth; David C Miller; Stephanie Daignault; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-09-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Henry M Rosevear; Paul T Gellhaus; Andrew J Lightfoot; Timothy P Kresowik; Fadi N Joudi; Chad R Tracy Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-07-20 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Jonathan S Ellison; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Khaled S Hafez; David C Miller; Chang He; J Stuart Wolf; Alon Z Weizer Journal: Int J Urol Date: 2012-11-06 Impact factor: 3.369
Authors: Hiten D Patel; Jeffrey K Mullins; Phillip M Pierorazio; Gautam Jayram; Jason E Cohen; Brian R Matlaga; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jeffrey A Larson; Jihad H Kaouk; Michael D Stifelman; Craig G Rogers; Mohamad E Allaf; Aaron Potretzke; Susan Marshall; Homayoun Zargar; Mark W Ball; Sam B Bhayani Journal: J Endourol Date: 2014-12-30 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Raouf M Seyam; Mohammed M Alalawi; Waleed K Alkhudair; Hassan M Alzahrani; Raed A Azhar; Khalid I Alothman; Turki O Al-Hussain; Mohammed F Alotaibi Journal: Saudi Med J Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: Renato B Corradi; Emily A Vertosick; Daniel P Nguyen; Antoni Vilaseca; Daniel D Sjoberg; Nicole Benfante; Lucas N Nogueira; Massimiliano Spaliviero; Karim A Touijer; Paul Russo; Jonathan A Coleman Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2017 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.541