World Journal of Urology

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 531–535 | Cite as

External validation of the preoperative anatomical classification for prediction of complications related to nephron-sparing surgery

  • Matthias Waldert
  • Sandra Waalkes
  • Tobias Klatte
  • Markus A. Kuczyk
  • Peter Weibl
  • Gerd Schüller
  • Axel S. Merseburger
  • Mesut Remzi
Original Article



Ficarra et al. (Eur Urol 56:786–793, 2009) published a preoperative anatomical classification (PADUA) to assess the impact of anatomical parameters of renal tumors on complication rate of nephron-sparing surgery (NSS). The objective of this study is to provide a bi-center external validation of this classification using the technique of hilar arterial clamping during open and laparoscopic NSS and to correlate the PADUA score to the ischemia time.


240 consecutive tumors treated with open and laparoscopic NSS were reclassified according to the PADUA classification. Complications were graded according to the modified Clavien system (Dindo et al. in Ann Surg 240:205–213, 2004). Chi-square tests and multivariate logistic regression models addressed the predictive value of PADUA classification on overall complication rate and grade.


Mean patient age was 62.2 ± 13.3 years. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance was 0 in 76%, 1 in 22% and 2 in 2%. 61 (25%) were treated laparoscopically. The median PADUA score was 7.5 (range 6–13). Mean surgery and ischemia time was 189 ± 95 and 24 ± 22 min, respectively. Overall complication rate was 23% (n = 54). On univariate analysis, the PADUA score correlated with complication rate (p < 0.001) of open and laparoscopic NSS. On multivariate, only the PADUA score correlated with complication rate (p = 0.0056). Ischemic time correlated with the PADUA score and was significantly higher in PADUA score ≥ 10 (p = 0.034).


The PADUA score is a reliable tool to preoperatively predict the risk of complications. In addition, it might be beneficial for a more objective patient selection for laparoscopic surgery and teaching NSS.


Anatomical classification Ischemic time Learning curve Nephron-sparing surgery Renal cell cancer 


Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Ficarra V, Novara G, Secco S et al (2009) Preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) classification of renal tumours in patients who are candidates for nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol 56:786–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Peycelon M, Hupertan V, Comperat E et al (2009) Long-term outcomes after nephron sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma larger than 4 cm. J Urol 181:35–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Antonelli A, Cozzoli A, Nicolai M et al (2008) Nephron-sparing surgery versus radical nephrectomy in the treatment of intracapsular renal cell carcinoma up to 7 cm. Eur Urol 53:803–809CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Uzzo RG, Novick AC (2001) Nephron sparing surgery for renal tumors: indications, techniques and outcomes. J Urol 166:6–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Novick AC, Campbell SC, Belldegrun A et al (2009) Guideline for management of the clinical stage 1 renal mass. American Urological Association.
  7. 7.
    Touijer K, Jacqmin D, Kavoussi LR et al (2010) The expanding role of partial nephrectomy: a critical analysis of indications, results, and complications. Eur Urol 57:214–222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Joniau S, Vander Eeckt K, Srirangam SJ, Van Poppel H (2009) Outcome of nephron-sparing surgery for T1b renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int 103:1344–1348CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kutikov A, Uzzo RG (2009) The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J Urol 182:844–853CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marszalek M, Meixl H, Polajnar M, Rauchenwald M, Jeschke K, Madersbacher S (2009) Laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison of 200 patients. Eur Urol 55:1171–1178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weizer AZ, Gilbert SM, Roberts WW, Hollenbeck BK, Wolf JS Jr (2008) Tailoring technique of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy to tumor characteristics. J Urol 180:1273–1278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Porpiglia F, Volpe A, Billia M, Renard J, Scarpa RM (2008) Assessment of risk factors for complications of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 53:590–596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Venkatesh R, Weld K, Ames CD et al (2006) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal masses: effect of tumor location. Urology 67:1169–1174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Porpiglia F, Volpe A, Billia M, Scarpa RM (2008) Laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy: analysis of the current literature. Eur Urol 53:732–742CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Waldert
    • 1
  • Sandra Waalkes
    • 2
  • Tobias Klatte
    • 1
  • Markus A. Kuczyk
    • 2
  • Peter Weibl
    • 1
  • Gerd Schüller
    • 3
  • Axel S. Merseburger
    • 2
  • Mesut Remzi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Department of UrologyMedical School of HannoverHannoverGermany
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations