Advertisement

Pre-operative factors that predict trifecta and pentafecta in robotic assisted partial nephrectomy

  • Amanda E. Kahn
  • Ashley M. Shumate
  • Colleen T. Ball
  • David D. ThielEmail author
Original Article
  • 2 Downloads

Abstract

To prospectively evaluate factors that predict achievement of trifecta and pentafecta following robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). Clinical variables of 330 RAPNs performed for a single renal tumor were analyzed for association with post-operative trifecta and pentafecta achievement. Trifecta was defined as warm ischemia time (WIT) ≤ 25 min, negative surgical margins, and no post-operative complications ≥ Clavien grade 3. Pentafecta was defined as trifecta criteria plus > 90% preservation of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and no stage upgrade of chronic kidney disease from pre-operative up to 12 months post-RAPN. After adjustment for multiple testing, p < 0.007 was considered statistically significant. Among 330 patients, trifecta was achieved in 280 patients (84.8%). Among the 152 patients with eGFR available at 12 months following RAPN, pentafecta was achieved in 39 (25.8%). A lower R.E.N.A.L. score was associated with increased odds of achieving trifecta (OR 3.38, p < 0.001) and pentafecta (OR 2.83 p < 0.001). No other pre-operative characteristics were associated with trifecta or pentafecta. Patients who achieved trifecta had a lower median estimated blood loss (EBL) (300 vs 400, p = 0.029) and shorter operative time (223 vs 234 min, p = 0.004) compared to patients without trifecta. There were no significant differences in EBL or operative time in patients who achieved or failed to achieve pentafecta. R.E.N.A.L score is the only pre-operative variable associated with achieving trifecta and pentafecta following RAPN. Lower EBL and operative time are associated with trifecta but not pentafecta outcomes.

Keywords

Trifecta Pentafecta Robotic surgery Robotic assisted partial nephrectomy R.E.N.A.L. score 

Notes

Funding

None.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors Amanda E. Kahn, Ashley M. Shumate, Colleen T. Ball, and David D. Thiel declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Supplementary material

11701_2019_958_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary file1 (DOCX 13 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Canfield S et al (2015) EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2014 update. Eur Urol 67:913–924.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Khalifeh A, Autorino R, Shahab HP et al (2013) Comparative outcomes and assessment of trifecta in 500 robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy cases: a single surgeon experience. J Urol 189:1236–1242.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.10.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zargar H, Allaf ME, Bhayani S et al (2015) Trifecta and optimal perioperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in surgical treatment of small renal masses: a multi-institutional study. BJU Int 116:407–414.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12933 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kutikov A, Uzzo RG (2009) The RENAL nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J Urol 182:844–853.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davidiuk AJ, Parker AS, Thomas CS et al (2014) Mayo adhesive probability score: an accurate image-based scoring system to predict adherent perinephric fat in partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 66:1165–1171.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dindo D, Demartines D, 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 240:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhayani SB, Figenshau RS (2008) The Washington University renorrhaphy for robotic partial nephrectomy: a detailed description of the technique displayed at the 2008 World Robotic Urologic Symposium. J Robot Surg 2:139–140.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-008-0096-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, Greene T, Rogers N, Roth D (1999) A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. Modification of diet in renal disease study group. Ann Intern Med 130:461–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levey AS, Coresh J, Balk E et al (2003) National kidney foundation practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Ann Intern Med 139:137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR (1996) A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 49:1373–1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tibshirani R (1996) Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol 58:267–288Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Castellucci R, Primiceri G, Castellan P et al (2018) Trifecta and pentafecta rates after robotic assisted partial nephrectomy: comparative study of patients with renal masses %3c 4 and ≥ 4 cm. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 28:799–803.  https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2017.0657 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mayer WA, Godoy G, Choi JM, Goh AC, Bian SX, Link RE (2012) Higher RENAL nephrometry score is predictive of longer warm ischemia time and collecting system entry during laparoscopic and robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy. Urology 79:1052–1056.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.01.048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim DK, Kim LHC, Raheem AA et al (2016) Comparison of trifecta and pentafecta outcomes between T1a and T1b renal masses following robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) with minimum 1 year follow up: can RAPN for T1b renal masses be feasible? PloS One 11:e0151738.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.phone.0151738 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kang M, Gong IH, Park HJ et al (2017) Predictive factors for achieving superior pentafecta outcomes following robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma. J Endourol 31:1231–1236.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.036917 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khene ZE, Peyronnet B, Mathieu R et al (2015) Analysis of the impact of adherent perirenal fat on perioperative outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy. World J Urol 33:1892–1896.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1500-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bier S, Aufderklamm S, Todenhöfer T et al (2017) Prediction of postoperative risks in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy using RENAL, Mayo adhesive probability and renal pelvic score. Anticancer Res 37:1369–1373.  https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.11457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyMayo ClinicJacksonvilleUSA
  2. 2.Division of Biomedical Statistics and InformaticsMayo ClinicJacksonvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations