| Literature DB >> 35454953 |
Kiyoshi Takahara1, Yoshiharu Ohno2, Kosuke Fukaya1, Ryo Matsukiyo2, Takuhisa Nukaya1, Masashi Takenaka1, Kenji Zennami1, Manabu Ichino1, Naohiko Fukami3, Hitomi Sasaki1, Mamoru Kusaka3, Hiroshi Toyama2, Makoto Sumitomo1, Ryoichi Shiroki1.
Abstract
To assess the perioperative and short-term functional outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) with intraoperative navigation using an ultra-high-resolution computed tomography (UHR-CT) scanner, we retrospectively analyzed 323 patients who underwent RAPN using an UHR-CT or area-detector CT (ADCT). Perioperative outcomes and the postoperative preservation ratio of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were compared. After the propensity score matching, we evaluated 99 patients in each group. Although the median warm ischemia time (WIT) was less than 25 min in both groups, it was significantly shorter in the UHR-CT group than in the ADCT group (15 min vs. 17 min, p = 0.032). Moreover, the estimated blood loss (EBL) was significantly lower in the UHR-CT group than in the ADCT group (33 mL vs. 50 mL, p = 0.028). However, there were no significant intergroup differences in the postoperative preservation ratio of eGFR at 3 or 6 months of follow-up (ADCT 91.8% vs. UHR-CT 93.5%, p = 0.195; and ADCT 91.7% vs. UHR-CT 94.0%, p = 0.160, respectively). Although no differences in short-term renal function were observed in intraoperative navigation for RAPN in this propensity score-matched cohort, this study is the first to demonstrate that UHR-CT resulted in a shorter WIT and lower EBL than ADCT.Entities:
Keywords: estimated blood loss; robot-assisted partial nephrectomy; ultra-high-resolution computed tomography; warm ischemia time
Year: 2022 PMID: 35454953 PMCID: PMC9032210 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14082047
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the image reconstruction methods. (A) Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction 3D; (B) Forward-projected model-based Iterative Reconstruction SoluTion; (C) Advanced intelligent Clear-IQ Engine.
Figure 2Flowchart of the patients enrolled in the study.
Figure 3Intraoperative navigation system using ultra-high-resolution computed tomography. (A) Image of the tumor, urinary tract, and vascular structures, including the renal pedicle. (B) Preoperative image of the cut surface of the tumor. (C) Intraoperative navigation system using TilePro software. (A) and (B) show the same renal tumor; (C) shows another renal tumor.
Patients’ clinical characteristics.
| Pre-Matching | Post-Matching | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median (IQR) or n (%) | ADCT (n = 221) | UHR-CT (n = 100) | ADCT (n = 99) | UHR-CT (n = 99) | ||
| Age | 60 (49–68) | 62 (54–70) | 0.072 | 62 (50–70) | 62 (54–70) | 0.444 |
| Sex (%): Male | 166 (75.1) | 72 (72.0) | 0.583 | 73 (73.7) | 71 (71.7) | 0.873 |
| Female | 55 (24.9) | 28 (28.0) | 26 (26.3) | 28 (28.3) | ||
| BMI, kg/m2 | 24 (22–26) | 24 (22–26) | 0.334 | 24 (21–26) | 23 (22–26) | 0.175 |
| ASA score | 2 (1–2) | 2 (1–2) | 0.274 | 2 (1–2) | 2 (1–2) | 0.365 |
| eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2 | 70 (59–80) | 68 (56–80) | 0.333 | 71 (58–80) | 68 (56–80) | 0.421 |
| Tumor side: Right | 114 (51.6) | 53 (53.0) | 0.904 | 54 (54.5) | 53 (53.5) | 0.887 |
| Left | 107 (48.4) | 47 (47.0) | 45 (45.5) | 46 (46.5) | ||
| Approach:Transperitoneal | 118 (53.4) | 47 (47.0) | 0.335 | 57 (57.6) | 47 (47.5) | 0.203 |
| Retroperitoneal | 103 (46.6) | 53 (53.0) | 42 (42.4) | 52 (52.5) | ||
| RENAL score | 7 (5–8) | 7 (5–8) | 0.375 | 7 (6–8) | 7 (5–8) | 0.133 |
| Hilar tumor | 48 (21.7) | 14 (14.0) | 0.127 | 21 (21.2) | 14 (14.1) | 0.264 |
| Cystic tumor | 36 (16.3) | 11 (11.0) | 0.237 | 16 (16.2) | 11 (11.1) | 0.408 |
Patients’ surgical outcomes.
| Post-Matching | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Median (IQR) or n (%) | ADCT (n = 99) | UHR-CT (n = 99) | |
| Surgical time, min | 158 (136–190) | 163 (148–190) | 0.440 |
| Console time, min | 110 (95–144) | 112 (91–133) | 0.483 |
| WIT, min | 17 (14–20) | 15 (12–21) | 0.032 |
| EBL, ml | 50 (20–104) | 33 (10–85) | 0.028 |
| Transfusion | 3 (3.0) | 1 (1.0) | 0.621 |
| Negative surgical margins | 99 (100) | 98 (99.0) | 1.000 |
| Pathology, clear cell carcinoma | 80 (80.8) | 72 (72.7) | 0.246 |
| Clavien-Dindo ≥3 | 0 (0) | 2 (2.0) | 0.497 |
| Trifecta | 80 (80.8) | 81 (81.8) | 1.000 |
Figure 4Estimated blood loss (EBL; in mL) of the low (A) and high (B) RENAL score (ADCT vs. UHR-CT, median with interquartile range) groups. WIT (minutes) of low (C) or high (D) RENAL score (ADCT vs. UHR-CT, median and interquartile range). ADCT, area-detector computed tomography; UHR-CT, ultra-high-resolution computed tomography.