Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Periprocedural outcome after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy versus radiofrequency ablation for T1 renal tumors:: A modified R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score adjusted comparison.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Radiology.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Urology.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Urology.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Urology.
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: Acta Radiologica, ISSN 0284-1851, E-ISSN 1600-0455, Vol. 60, no 2, p. 260-268Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Comparable oncological outcomes have been seen after surgical nephrectomy and thermal ablation of renal tumors recently. However, periprocedural outcome needs to be assessed for aiding treatment decision.

Purpose: To compare efficacy rates and periprocedural outcome (technical success, session time, hospitalization time, and complications) after renal tumor treatment with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA).

Material and Methods: The initial experience with 49 (treated with LPN) and 84 (treated with RFA) consecutive patients for a single renal tumor (diameter ≤ 5 cm, limited to the kidney) during 2007-2014 was evaluated. Patient and tumor characteristics, efficacy rates, and periprocedural outcome were collected retrospectively. The stratified Mantel Haenzel and Van Elteren tests, adjusted for tumor complexity (with the modified R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score [m-RNS]), were used to assess differences in treatment outcomes.

Results: Primary efficacy rate was 98% for LPN and 85.7% for RFA; secondary efficacy rate was 93.9% for LPN and 95.2% for RFA; and technical success rate was 87.8% for LPN and 100% for RFA. Median session (m-RNS adjusted P < 0.001; LPN 215 min, RFA 137 min) and median hospitalization time were longer after LPN (m-RNS adjusted P < 0.001; LPN 5 days, RFA 2 days). Side effects were uncommon (LPN 2%, RFA 4.8%). Complications were more frequent after LPN (m-RNS adjusted P < 0.001; LPN 42.9%, RFA 10.7%).

Conclusion: Both methods achieved equivalent secondary efficacy rates. RFA included several treatment sessions, but session and hospitalization times were shorter, and complications were less frequent than for LPN. The differences remained after adjustment for renal tumor complexity.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2018. Vol. 60, no 2, p. 260-268
Keywords [en]
Ablation procedures, interventional, kidney, percutaneous, primary neoplasms
National Category
Urology and Nephrology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-354169DOI: 10.1177/0284185118780891ISI: 000459621200017PubMedID: 29911400OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-354169DiVA, id: diva2:1220899
Available from: 2018-06-19 Created: 2018-06-19 Last updated: 2019-03-21Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Acosta Ruiz, VanessaLadjevardi, SamBrekkan, EinarHäggman, MichaelLönnemark, MariaWernroth, LisaMagnusson, Anders
By organisation
RadiologyUrologyMolecular epidemiology
In the same journal
Acta Radiologica
Urology and Nephrology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 425 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf