Zusammenfassung
Hintergrund
Ziel dieser Studie war es zu evaluieren, wie in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz die Nierenteilresektion technisch durchgeführt wird.
Material und Methoden
Es wurde ein einseitiger anonymer Fragebogen entworfen, um die Indikation, das technische Vorgehen und die Nachsorge bei R1-Resektion zur Nierenteilresektion abzufragen. Weiterhin wurden die Größe der Krankenhäuser und deren Einzugsgebiet erfasst. Der Fragebogen wurde an 341 urologische Kliniken verschickt und eine statistische Auswertung vorgenommen.
Ergebnisse
Die Rücklaufquote betrug 69 %. Bis zu 99 % der Kliniken führen die Teilresektion auch bei T1b-Tumoren durch. 58 % der Kliniken führen diesen Eingriff auch laparoskopisch durch. 83 % führen die Teilresektion auch in warmer Ischämie durch. Bei R1-Befund wird von 29 % eine Bildgebung innerhalb der ersten 6 Wochen empfohlen. Laut dieser Umfrage führten Kliniken der Maximalversorgung häufiger laparoskopische Nierenteilresektionen durch (p = 0,003).
Schlussfolgerung
Die Studie von 236 Kliniken welche Nierenteilresektionen durchführen zeigt eine große Variabilität bei Indikation, Technik und Nachsorge der organerhaltenden Nierentumorchirurgie. Sie zeigt auch, dass ein großer Teil der Tumore > 4 cm organerhaltend operiert werden, davon auch ein hoher Anteil minimal-invasiv. Die sehr unterschiedliche Handhabung bei positivem Schnellschnitt und R1-Befunden zeigt die Notwendigkeit weiterer Studien zum Langzeit-Follow-up nach minimal-invasiver Chirurgie bei R1- und Nierentumoren > T1a.
Abstract
Background
The goal of this study was to evaluate how partial nephrectomy is technically performed in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
Methods
A one-page anonymous questionnaire was designed to evaluate the indication, the technical procedure, and the follow-up of R1 situation after partial nephrectomy. Furthermore, the size of the hospitals and their catchment areas were recorded. The questionnaire was sent to 341 clinics and a statistical analysis was performed.
Results
The response rate was 69 %. Up to 99 % of the clinics also perform partial resection in T1b tumors. Of those responding, 58 % perform this surgery laparoscopically, and 83 % of the surgeries are performed in warm ischemia. For the follow-up, 29 % suggest imaging within the first 6 weeks. According to this survey, maximum care clinics perform laparoscopic nephrectomy more frequently (p = 0.003).
Conclusion
The survey of 236 hospitals performing partial nephrectomy shows great variability in the indication, technique, and aftercare of organ-preserving renal tumor surgery. It also shows that a large proportion of tumors >4 cm undergo organ-preserving surgery, many of them minimally invasive. The diverse handling with positive instantaneous section and R1 results suggest the need for further studies concerning long-term follow-up after minimally invasive surgery with R1 situation and renal tumors > T1a.
Literatur
Becker F, Van Poppel H, Hakenberg OW et al (2009) Assessing the impact of ischaemia time during partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 56:625–634
Breda A, Stepanian SV, Lam JS et al (2007) Use of haemostatic agents and glues during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a multi-institutional survey from the United States and Europe of 1347 cases. Eur Urol 52:798–803
Buethe DD, Moussly S, Lin HY et al (2012) Is the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scoring system predictive of the functional efficacy of nephron sparing surgery in the solitary kidney? J Urol 188:729–735
Buffi N, Lista G, Larcher A et al (2012) Margin, ischemia, and complications (MIC) score in partial nephrectomy: a new system for evaluating achievement of optimal outcomes in nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol 62:617–618
Butler BP, Novick AC, Miller DP et al (1995) Management of small unilateral renal cell carcinomas: radical versus nephron-sparing surgery. Urology 45:34–40
Colli J, Sartor O, Grossman L et al (2012) Underutilization of partial nephrectomy for stage T1 renal cell carcinoma in the United States, trends from 2000 to 2008. A long way to go. Clin Genitourin Cancer 10:219–224
Desai PJ, Andrews PE, Ferrigni RG et al (2008) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy at the Mayo Clinic Arizona: follow-up surveillance of positive margin disease. Urology 71:283–286
Duvdevani M, Laufer M, Kastin A et al (2005) Is frozen section analysis in nephron sparing surgery necessary? A clinicopathological study of 301 cases. J Urol 173:385–387
Gill IS, Ramani AP, Spaliviero M et al (2005) Improved hemostasis during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy using gelatin matrix thrombin sealant. Urology 65:463–466
Greco F, Autorino R, Rha KH et al (2013) Laparoendoscopic single-site partial nephrectomy: a multi-institutional outcome analysis. Eur Urol 64:314–322
Hagemann IS, Lewis JS Jr (2009) A retrospective comparison of 2 methods of intraoperative margin evaluation during partial nephrectomy. J Urol 181:500–505
Hughes-Hallett A, Patki P, Patel N et al (2013) Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a comparison of the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. J Endourol 27:869–874
Kim SP, Thompson RH (2013) Kidney function after partial nephrectomy: current thinking. Curr Opin Urol 23:105–111
Lane BR, Campbell SC, Gill IS (2013) 10-year oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy. J Urol 190:44–49
Lang H, Mouracade P, Gimel P et al (2013) National prospective study on the use of local haemostatic agents during partial nephrectomy. BJU Int doi: 10.1111/bju.12397
Li Q, Guan H, Qin J et al (2010) Mini-Margin nephron sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma 4 cm or less. Adv Urol (Epub ahead of print). doi: 10.1155/2010/145942
Maclennan S, Imamura M, Lapitan MC et al (2012) Systematic review of oncological outcomes following surgical management of localised renal cancer. Eur Urol 61:972–993
Marszalek M, Carini M, Chlosta P et al (2012) Positive surgical margins after nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol 61:757–763
Nakano E, Fujioka H, Matsuda M et al (1984) Late recurrence of renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy. Eur Urol 10:347–349
Pantuck AJ, Zisman A, Belldegrun AS (2001) The changing natural history of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 166:1611–1623
Ramani AP, Desai MM, Steinberg AP et al (2005) Complications of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in 200 cases. J Urol 173:42–47
Richter F, Schnorr D, Deger S et al (2003) Improvement of hemostasis in open and laparoscopically performed partial nephrectomy using a gelatin matrix-thrombin tissue sealant (FloSeal). Urology 61:73–77
Schone G (1953) Vincenz Czerny, professor of surgery in Freiburg and Heidelberg and his contribution to the progress in surgery and gynecology. Bruns Beitr Klin Chir 187:385–408
Simmons MN, Weight CJ, Gill IS (2009) Laparoscopic radical versus partial nephrectomy for tumors > 4 cm: intermediate-term oncologic and functional outcomes. Urology 73:1077–1082
Sun M, Trinh QD, Bianchi M et al (2012) A non-cancer-related survival benefit is associated with partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 61:725–731
Sundaram V, Figenshau RS, Roytman TM et al (2011) Positive margin during partial nephrectomy: does cancer remain in the renal remnant? Urology 77:1400–1403
Mentzer JT, Flint DJ (1997) Validity in logistics research. J Bus Logist 18:199–216
Tanaka K, Shigemura K, Furukawa J et al (2013) Comparison of the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in an initial case series in Japan. J Endourol 27(11):1384–1388
Van Poppel H, Becker F, Cadeddu JA et al (2011) Treatment of localised renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 60:662–672
Weight CJ, Larson BT, Gao T et al (2010) Elective partial nephrectomy in patients with clinical T1b renal tumors is associated with improved overall survival. Urology 76:631–637
Zini L, Patard JJ, Capitanio U et al (2009) Cancer-specific and non-cancer-related mortality rates in European patients with T1a and T1b renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int 103:894–898
Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien
Interessenkonflikt. S. Tietze, M. Herms, W. Behrend, A. Hamza geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht. Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tietze, S., Herms, M., Behrendt, W. et al. Kontroversen der Nierenteilresektion bei Nierenzellkarzinom. Urologe 53, 1181–1185 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-014-3469-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-014-3469-5
Schlüsselwörter
- Nierenteilresektion, laparoskopische
- Nierentumorchirurgie
- Chirurgie, minimal-invasive
- Nierenfunktion
- Niereninsuffizienz