How a Donor Nephrectomy Population Can Help Give Perspective to the Effects of Renal Parenchymal Preservation During Partial Nephrectomy

Shen, Jim; Ruckle, David; Li, Roger; Keheila, Mohamed; Alsyouf, Muhannad; Schober, Jared P.; Tryon, David; Stokes, Phillip; Ruckle, Herbert C.; Baron, Pedro; Vera, Michael de; Baldwin, D. Duane

doi:10.1089/end.2018.0654

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The authors evaluated % egfr variation at discharge, 1-7 months, and last follow-up, and achieved the conclusion that PN provided immediate better functional outcomes and that should be considered, even at expense of longer ischemia time. 24 if this could be true for small renal masses, it might be different for large and complex ones. recently, Wu et al conducted a refined analysis of the functional impact of the vascularized parenchymal mass preserved with partial nephrectomy and predictors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robotic partial nephrectomy versus radical nephrectomy in elderly patients with large renal masses

Veccia

Dell’Oglio

Antonelli

et al. 2020

Minerva Urol Nefrol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that the "oldest old" patients might benefit of partial nephrectomy (PN), but decision-making for this subset of patients is still controversial. aim of this study is to compare outcomes of robotic partial (rPN) or radical nephrectomy (rrN) for large renal masses in patients older than 65 years. METHODS: We identified 417≥65 years old patients who underwent RRN or RPN for cT1b or ≥cT2 renal mass at 17 high volume centers. Propensity score match analysis was performed adjusting for age, ASA≥3, pre-operative eGFR, and clinical tumor size. Predictors of complications, functional and oncological outcomes were evaluated in multivariable logistic and cox regression models. reSUlTS: after propensity score analysis, 73 patients in the rPN group were matched with 74 in the rrN group. r.e.N.a.l. Score (9.6±1.7 vs. 8.6±1.7; P<0.001), and high complexity (56 vs. 15%; P=0.001) were higher in the rrN. estimated blood loss was higher in the rPN group (200 vs. 100 ml; P<0.001). rPN showed higher rate of overall complications (38 vs. 23%; P=0.05), but not major complications (P=0.678). at last follow-up, rPN group showed better

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%