OBJECTIVE: Cryoablation of renal tumors adjacent to the ureter or pelvicalyceal system carries risks for thermal injury of the collecting system. Although cold antegrade perfusion has been described for radiofrequency ablation, warm saline perfusion for renal cryoablation has not been well-characterized. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and feasibility of antegrade and retrograde warm saline perfusions during percutaneous renal cryoablation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on 136 patients treated with percutaneous renal cryoablation at a single academic institution between 2009 and 2015. Six patients undergoing antegrade (n=3) or retrograde (n=3) warm saline perfusion for protection of the collecting system were identified. Warm saline was perfused through a 4 French nephrostomy tube in the antegrade technique and through a 6 French end-hole catheter in the retrograde technique. Outcome measures were tumor recurrence rates, success of urothelial preservation, hospital stay, blood loss and procedural time. RESULTS: Four tumors were in the lower pole and two tumors in the middle pole. The mean distance from tumor to ureter was 6.8 mm (0.8-11.5 mm) and no patient developed ureteral stricture. There was no tumor recurrence at a median follow-up of 37.3 months (7-65). The median procedural time was 3 hours and 13 minutes. One patient in each group developed minor complications (Clavien I and II) and there were no major complications. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the feasibility of antegrade and retrograde warm saline perfusion for ureteral preservation during cryoablation, without compromising oncologic outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: Cryoablation of renal tumors adjacent to the ureter or pelvicalyceal system carries risks for thermal injury of the collecting system. Although cold antegrade perfusion has been described for radiofrequency ablation, warm saline perfusion for renal cryoablation has not been well-characterized. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and feasibility of antegrade and retrograde warm saline perfusions during percutaneous renal cryoablation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on 136 patients treated with percutaneous renal cryoablation at a single academic institution between 2009 and 2015. Six patients undergoing antegrade (n=3) or retrograde (n=3) warm saline perfusion for protection of the collecting system were identified. Warm saline was perfused through a 4 French nephrostomy tube in the antegrade technique and through a 6 French end-hole catheter in the retrograde technique. Outcome measures were tumor recurrence rates, success of urothelial preservation, hospital stay, blood loss and procedural time. RESULTS: Four tumors were in the lower pole and two tumors in the middle pole. The mean distance from tumor to ureter was 6.8 mm (0.8-11.5 mm) and no patient developed ureteral stricture. There was no tumor recurrence at a median follow-up of 37.3 months (7-65). The median procedural time was 3 hours and 13 minutes. One patient in each group developed minor complications (Clavien I and II) and there were no major complications. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the feasibility of antegrade and retrograde warm saline perfusion for ureteral preservation during cryoablation, without compromising oncologic outcomes.
Authors: Debra A Gervais; Francis J McGovern; Ronald S Arellano; W Scott McDougal; Peter R Mueller Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Adam Froemming; Thomas Atwell; Michael Farrell; Matthew Callstrom; Bradley Leibovich; William Charboneau Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Jaime Landman; Ramakrishna Venkatesh; David Lee; Richard Vanlangendonck; Kevin Morissey; Gerald L Andriole; Ralph V Clayman; Chandru P Sundaram Journal: Urology Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: D Brooke Johnson; Stephen B Solomon; Li-Ming Su; Edward D Matsumoto; Louis R Kavoussi; Stephen Y Nakada; Timothy D Moon; W Bruce Shingleton; Jeffrey A Cadeddu Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Colin P Cantwell; Tze M Wah; Debra A Gervais; Brian H Eisner; Ronald Arellano; Raul N Uppot; Anthony E Samir; Henry C Irving; Francis McGovern; Peter R Mueller Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2008-06-02 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Jeffrey M Woldrich; Kerrin Palazzi; Sean P Stroup; Roger L Sur; J Kellogg Parsons; David Chang; Ithaar H Derweesh Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: James X Chen; Thomas J Guzzo; S Bruce Malkowicz; Michael C Soulen; Alan J Wein; Timothy W I Clark; Gregory J Nadolski; S William Stavropoulos Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Helen Ng; Vinson Wai-Shun Chan; Jon Cartledge; Michael Kimuli; Christy Ralph; Satinder Jagdev; Naveen Vasudev; Selina Bhattarai; James Lenton; Jonathan Smith; Tze Min Wah Journal: Radiol Case Rep Date: 2021-06-08