PURPOSE: To evaluate if the widespread adoption of a minimally invasive approach to radical nephrectomy has affected short- and long-term patient outcomes in the modern era. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent radical nephrectomy from 2001 to 2012 was conducted using the US National Cancer Institute Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program and Medicare insurance program database. Patients who underwent open surgery were compared to those who underwent minimally invasive surgery using propensity score matching. RESULTS: 10,739 (85.9%) underwent open surgery and 1776 (14.1%) underwent minimally invasive surgery. Minimally invasive surgery increased from 18.4% from 2001-2004 to 43.5% from 2009 to 2012. After median follow-up of 57.1 months, minimally invasive radical nephrectomy conferred long-term oncologic efficacy in terms of overall (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.75-0.95) survival and cancer-specific (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.54-0.86) survival compared to open radical nephrectomy. Minimally invasive surgery was associated with lower risk of inpatient death [risk ratio (RR) 0.45 with 95% CI: (0.20-0.99), p = 0.04], deep vein thrombosis [RR: 0.35 (0.18-0.69), p = 0.002], respiratory complications [RR: 0.73 (0.60-0.89), p = 0.001], infectious complications [RR: 0.35 (0.14-0.90), p = 0.02], acute kidney injury [RR: 0.66 (0.52-0.84), p < 0.001], sepsis [RR: 0.55 (0.31-0.98), p = 0.04], prolonged length of stay (18.6 vs 30.0%, p < 0.001), and ICU admission (19.7 vs 26.3%, p < 0.001). Costs were similar between the two approaches (30-day costs $15,882 vs $15,564; p = 0.70). CONCLUSION: After widespread adoption of minimally invasive approaches to radical nephrectomy across the United States, oncologic standards remain preserved with improved perioperative outcomes at no additional cost burden.
PURPOSE: To evaluate if the widespread adoption of a minimally invasive approach to radical nephrectomy has affected short- and long-term patient outcomes in the modern era. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent radical nephrectomy from 2001 to 2012 was conducted using the US National Cancer Institute Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program and Medicare insurance program database. Patients who underwent open surgery were compared to those who underwent minimally invasive surgery using propensity score matching. RESULTS: 10,739 (85.9%) underwent open surgery and 1776 (14.1%) underwent minimally invasive surgery. Minimally invasive surgery increased from 18.4% from 2001-2004 to 43.5% from 2009 to 2012. After median follow-up of 57.1 months, minimally invasive radical nephrectomy conferred long-term oncologic efficacy in terms of overall (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.75-0.95) survival and cancer-specific (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.54-0.86) survival compared to open radical nephrectomy. Minimally invasive surgery was associated with lower risk of inpatient death [risk ratio (RR) 0.45 with 95% CI: (0.20-0.99), p = 0.04], deep vein thrombosis [RR: 0.35 (0.18-0.69), p = 0.002], respiratory complications [RR: 0.73 (0.60-0.89), p = 0.001], infectious complications [RR: 0.35 (0.14-0.90), p = 0.02], acute kidney injury [RR: 0.66 (0.52-0.84), p < 0.001], sepsis [RR: 0.55 (0.31-0.98), p = 0.04], prolonged length of stay (18.6 vs 30.0%, p < 0.001), and ICU admission (19.7 vs 26.3%, p < 0.001). Costs were similar between the two approaches (30-day costs $15,882 vs $15,564; p = 0.70). CONCLUSION: After widespread adoption of minimally invasive approaches to radical nephrectomy across the United States, oncologic standards remain preserved with improved perioperative outcomes at no additional cost burden.
Authors: Jeffrey S Barkun; Jeffrey K Aronson; Liane S Feldman; Guy J Maddern; Steven M Strasberg; Douglas G Altman; Jeffrey S Barkun; Jane M Blazeby; Isabell C Boutron; W Bruce Campbell; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Jonathan A Cook; Patrick L Ergina; David R Flum; Paul Glasziou; John C Marshall; Peter McCulloch; Jon Nicholl; Bournaby C Reeves; Christoph M Seiler; Jonathan L Meakins; Deborah Ashby; Nick Black; John Bunker; Martin Burton; Marion Campbell; Kalipso Chalkidou; Iain Chalmers; Marc de Leval; Jon Deeks; Adrian Grant; Muir Gray; Roger Greenhalgh; Milos Jenicek; Sean Kehoe; Richard Lilford; Peter Littlejohns; Yoon Loke; Rajan Madhock; Kim McPherson; Peter Rothwell; Bill Summerskill; David Taggart; Parris Tekkis; Matthew Thompson; Tom Treasure; Ulrich Trohler; Jan Vandenbroucke Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-09-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jeremy A Rassen; Abhi A Shelat; Jessica Myers; Robert J Glynn; Kenneth J Rothman; Sebastian Schneeweiss Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Lauren E Cipriano; Dorothy Romanus; Craig C Earle; Bridget A Neville; Elkan F Halpern; G Scott Gazelle; Pamela M McMahon Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Borje Ljungberg; Karim Bensalah; Steven Canfield; Saeed Dabestani; Fabian Hofmann; Milan Hora; Markus A Kuczyk; Thomas Lam; Lorenzo Marconi; Axel S Merseburger; Peter Mulders; Thomas Powles; Michael Staehler; Alessandro Volpe; Axel Bex Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Keith J Kowalczyk; Toni K Choueiri; Nathanael D Hevelone; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Stuart R Lipsitz; Paul L Nguyen; John H Lynch; Jim C Hu Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-03-04 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Furkan Dursun; Ahmed Elshabrawy; Hanzhang Wang; Ronald Rodriguez; Michael A Liss; Dharam Kaushik; Jonathan Gelfond; Ahmed M Mansour Journal: Int J Clin Oncol Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Michele Manigrasso; Marco Milone; Nunzio Velotti; Sara Vertaldi; Pietro Schettino; Mario Musella; Giovanni Aprea; Nicola Gennarelli; Francesco Maione; Giovanni Sarnelli; Pietro Venetucci; Giovanni Domenico De Palma; Francesco Milone Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 2.754