Bigazzi, B.

Bonifazi, M.

Campi, R.

Carini, Marco

Chini, T.

Gacci, Mauro

Mari, A.

Minervini, Andrea

Serni, Sergio

Sessa, F.

Sforza, S.

Siena, Giampaolo

Vanacore, D.

Vignolini, Graziano

Xhaferi, R.

English

Florence Research

415 Endoscopic robot-assisted simple enucleation (ERASE) vs open simple enucleation (OSE) forthe treatment of clinical T1 renal masses: Analysis of predictors of trifecta outcome Eur Urol Suppl 2016;15(3);e415          Print!Mari A., Bonifazi M., Campi R., Sessa F., Chini T., Siena G., Tuccio A., Masieri L., Vignolini G., Gacci M., Lapini A., Serni S., Carini M.,Minervini A.Careggi University Hospital, Dept. of Urology, Florence, ItalyINTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to analyse the intra and postoperative complications and the predictive factors ofTrifecta outcome in patients submitted to ERASE and OSE for clinical T1 renal masses.MATERIAL & METHODS: Overall 634 cases treated with OSE (n=290) and ERASE (n=344) were prospectively recorded in our departmentbetween 2006 and 2014. Trifecta was defined as simultaneous ischemia time <25 min, no surgical complication and negative surgicalmargin. A univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were performed for Trifecta.RESULTS: The two groups were comparable for BMI, comorbidity, tumor side, clinical T score, tumor diameter, surgical indication,preoperative renal function, preoperative hemoglobin and hematocrit.A significant difference was found between the OSE and the ERASE groups in operative time (115 (96-130) vs 150 (120-180) minutes,p<0.0001), pedicle clamping (93.8% vs 69.2%, p<0.0001), estimated blood loss (EBL) (150 (100-200) vs 100 (100-143) cc, p<0.0001) andintraoperative complications (3.4% vs 1.7%, p=0.02). The two groups were comparable for WIT ≥25 min. A significant difference was found between OSE and ERASE in overall (16.6% vs 5.5%, p<0.0001), Clavien 2 (11.7% vs 4.4%, p=0.02) andClavien 3 (3.1% vs 1.7%, p=0.04) postoperative surgical complications, length of stay (6.0 (5.0-7.0) vs 5.0 (4.0-6.0) days, p<0.0001),preoperative -1st day delta creatinine (0.3 (0.2-0.4) vs 0.15 (0.1-0.2) mg/dL, p<0.0001), positive surgical margins (2.1% vs 1.5%,p=0.04),and Trifecta achievement (73.8% vs 85.5%, p<0.0001).At univariable analysis, a higher median clinical diameter, a higher mean age, a higher median Charlson comorbidity index (CCI),endophytic tumor growth pattern, renal sinus and caliceal dislocation of the tumor, a higher median PADUA score and OSE were predictivefactors of Trifecta achievement.At multivariable analysis, CCI lost significance (p=0.26), while age (OR: 1.02, IC95%:1.00-1.04, p=0.001), clinical diameter (OR: 1.22, IC:1.05-1.42, p=0.008), PADUA score (OR: 1.23, IC: 1.07-1.41, p=0.004) and OSE (OR: 1.74, IC: 1.13-2.68, p=0.01) were confirmedpredictive factors for Trifecta failure.CONCLUSIONS: The ERASE is a feasible and safe technique, which shows a comparable WIT, together with a significantly lower EBL,surgical complications rate, length of stay and a significantly higher Trifecta achievement compared to OSE. Age, comorbidity, tumordiameter and PADUA score, in association with surgical approach represent significant predictive factors of Trifecta failure.

ENDOSCOPIC ROBOT-ASSISTED SIMPLE ENUCLEATION (ERASE) VS OPEN SIMPLE ENUCLEATION (OSE) FOR THE TREATMENT OF CLINICAL T1 RENAL MASSES: ANALYSIS OF PREDICTORS OF TRIFECTA OUTCOME

https://flore.unifi.it/retrieve/handle/2158/1056658/203813/415-Endoscopic-robot-assisted-simple-enucleation-ERASE-vs-open-simple-enucleation-OSE-for-the-treatment-of-clinical-T1-renal-masses-Analysis-of-predic%20-%20Copia.pdf

ENDOSCOPIC ROBOT-ASSISTED SIMPLE ENUCLEATION (ERASE) VS OPEN SIMPLE ENUCLEATION (OSE) FOR THE TREATMENT OF CLINICAL T1 RENAL MASSES: ANALYSIS OF PREDICTORS OF TRIFECTA OUTCOME

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Florence Research