Structure of 90 day complications after solitary kidney resection due to parenchyma tumors

Objective. Study of 90 day complications after solitary kidney resection and determination of their dependence on resection complexity level in accordance with the RENAL nephrometry scoring system.

Materials and methods. Seventy (70) resections due to solitary kidney tumors were performed in 65 patients (34 males and 31 females). Mean age was 59.1 years (40–75 years). Fifty-five (55) patients had renal cell carcinoma, 10 patients had benign tumors. According to the RENAL scoring system, in 17 (24 %) cases resection complexity was 4–6 points, in 21 (30 %) cases it was 7–9 points, in 32 (45 %) cases it was 10–12 points. Mean tumor diameter was 4.4 (1.5–10.0) cm. Kidney resection without ischemia was performed in 3 patients, with segmental ischemia – in 39 cases. In 28 (40 %) cases general ischemia was used, its mean duration was 18 (6–48) minutes. Local hypothermia was used in 5 patients. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics 16.

Results. Analysis of 90 day complications revealed no complications in 41 (58.6 %) cases, severity grade I complications were observed in 2 (2.9 %) cases, grade II – in 20 (28.6 %), grade III – in 6 (8.6 %); there were no grade IV and V complications. Hemodialysis wasn’t performed. Complications were significantly more frequent when total RENAL points were higher (Mann–Whitney U-test, р = 0.001); a positive correlation between RENAL score and presence of complications was observed (Spearman’s rho 0.411; p <0.001). A dependence between complications severity and RENAL score (Mann–Whitney U-test, р = 0.004) and a positive correlation between complications severity and RENAL score (Spearman’s rho 0.432; p <0,001) were revealed.

Conclusion. Forty-five percent (45 %) of kidney resections were of maximum complexity according to the RENAL scoring system. In 60 % of cases resection was performed without general ischemia. Analysis of the results of solitary kidney resection demonstrated high efficacy and safety of the procedure and dependence of the frequency and severity of complications on complexity level per the RENAL scoring system.

1. Алексеев Б.Я., Калпинский А.С., Поляков В.А., Андрианов А.Н. Лапароскопическая резекция почки с применением радиочастотной термоаблации. Онокоурология 2012;(2):21–7. [Alekseev B.Ya., Kalpinskiy A.S., Polyakov V.A., Andrianov A.N. Laparoscopic nephrectomy using radiofrequency thermal ablation. Onkourologiya = Onkourology 2012;(2):21–7. (In Russ.)].

2. Galfano A. Clinical and pathological characteristics of renal cell carcinoma: did they change during the last 20 years? European Urology Supplements 2005;4(3):51.

3. Klatte T., Ficarra V., Gratzke C. et al. A literature review of renal surgical anatomy and surgical strategies for partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 2015;6(68):980–92. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.04.010. PMID: 25911061.

4. Lang H., Lindner V., Letourneux H. et al. Prognostic value of microscopic venous invasion in renal cell carcinoma: long term follow-up. Eur Urol 2004;46(3):331–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2004.06.011. PMID: 15363576.

5. Аляев Ю.Г., Крапивин А.А. Резекция почки при раке. М.: Медицина, 2001. С. 42–51. [Alyaev Yu.G., Krapivin A.A. Kidney resection in cancer. Moscow: Meditsina, 2001. Pp. 42–51. (In Russ.)].

6. Атдуев В.А., Овчинников В.А. Хирургия опухолей паренхимы почки. М.: Медицинская книга, 2004. 191 с. [Atduev V.A., Ovchinnikov V.A. Surgery of kidney parenchyma tumors. Moscow: Meditsinskaya kniga, 2004. 191 p. (In Russ.)].

7. Ljungberg B., Bensalah K., Bex A. et al. Guidelines on renal cell carcinoma. European Association of Urology, 2016. P. 21–26.

8. Mues A.C., Korets R., Graversen J.A. et al. Clinical, pathologic, and functional outcomes after nephron-sparing surgery in patients with a solitary kidney: a multicenter experience. J endourol 2012;26(10):1361–6. DOI: 10.1089/end.2012.0114.

9. Kutikov A., Uzzo R.G. The RENAL nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J Urol 2009;182(3):844–53. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.035. PMID: 19616235.

10. Simmons M.N., Ching C.B., Samplaski M.K. et al. Kidney tumor location measurement using the C-index method. J Urol 2010;183(5):1708. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.01.005. PMID: 20299047.

11. Buffi N., Lista G., Larcher A. et al. Margin, ischemia, and complications (MIC) score in partial nephrectomy: a new system for evaluating achievement of optimal outcomes in nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol 2012;62(4):618–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.06.031. PMID: 22790286.

12. Ficarra V., Novara G., Secco S. et al. Preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) classification of renal tumours in patients who are candidates for nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol 2009;56(5):786–93. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.07.040. PMID: 19665284.

13. Атдуев В.А., Шахов Е.В., Овчинников В.А. Органосохраняющие операции при опухолях паренхимы почки. Урология 2001;(5):19–22. [Atduev V.A., Shakhov E.V., Ovchinnikov V.A. Organpreserving surgeries for kidney parenchyma tumors. Urologiya = Urology 2001;(5):19–22. (In Russ.)].

14. Klatte T., Ficarra V., Gratzke C. et al. A literature review of renal surgical anatomy and surgical strategies for partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 2015;6(68):980–92. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.04.010. PMID: 25911061.

15. Матвеев В.Б., Волкова М.И., Скворцов И.Я. и др. Целесообразность и безопасность трансперитонеальной лапароскопической резекции почки при опухолях почечной паренхимы. Онкоурология 2014;10(1):25–34. [Matveev V.B., Volkova M.I., Skvortsov I.Ya. et al. The advisability and safety of transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal parenchymal tumors. Onkourologiya = Onkourology 2014;10(1):25–34. (In Russ.)]. DOI:10.17650/1726-9776-2014-10-1-25-34.

16. Thompson R.H., Leibovich B.C., Lohse C.M. et al. Complications of contemporary open nephron sparing surgery: a single institution experience. J Urol 2005;174(3):855–8. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000169453.29706.42. PMID: 16093969.

17. Thompson R.H., Frank I., Lohse C.M. et al. The Impact of ischemia time during open nephron sparing surgery on solitary kidneys: a multi-institutional study. J Urol 2007;177(2):471–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.09.036. PMID: 17222613.

18. Zargar H., Akca O., Ramirez D. et al. The impact of extended warm ischemia time on late renal function after robotic partial nephrectomy. J Endourol 2015;29(4):444–8. DOI: 10.1089/end.2014.0557. PMID: 25203268.

19. Volpe A., Blute M.L., Ficarra V. et al. Renal ischemia and function after partial nephrectomy: a collaborative review of the literature. Eur Urol 2015;68(1):61–74. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.025. PMID: 25703575.

20. Hung A.J., Cai J., Simmons M., Gill I.S. “Trifecta” in partial nephrectomy. J Urol 2013;189:36–42.

21. Samplaski M.K., Hernandez A., Gill I.S., Simmons M.N. C-index is associated with functional outcomes after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Urol 2010;184(6)2259–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.08.031. PMID: 21036370.

22. Khalifeh A., Autorino R., Hillyer S.P. et al. Comparative outcomes and assessment of trifecta in 500 robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy cases: a single surgeon experience. J Urol 2013;189(4):1236–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.10.021. PMID: 23079376.

23. Kutikov A., Smaldone M.C., Egleston B.L. et al. Anatomic features of enhancing renal masses predict malignant and high-grade pathology: a preoperative nomogram using the RENAL nephrometry score. Eur Urol 2011;60:241–8.

24. Zargar H., Allaf M., Bhayani S. et al. Trifecta and optimal peri-operative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in surgical treatment of small renal masses: a multi-institutional study. BJU Int 2015;116(3): 407–14. DOI: 10.1111/bju.12933. PMID: 25220543.