Our results prompt one to question our current way of thinking about nephrectomy. The conclusion that kidney removal deteriorates renal function is not surprising or insightful. It is apparent, however, that our knowledge on the long-term effect of renal surgery is insufficient.
One year after renal surgery, we observed a mean increase of 27% in serum creatinine concentration. Simultaneously, we recorded a decrease of 22% in eGFR and 30% in effective renal plasma flow. All these changes were more clinically and statistically significant in radically nephrectomized patients than in partially nephrectomized patients.
First, our results confirm the appropriateness of nephron-sparing surgery and the need to perform partial nephrectomy on appropriate patients to avoid the removal of normal renal parenchyma and consequently excessive deterioration of renal function. At the 1-year observation point, we recorded a 32% decrease in eGFR in radically nephrectomized patients, compared to a mere 5% decrease in partially nephrectomized patients. Similar conclusions stem from the study published by Clark et al. comparing creatinine clearance in patients undergoing RN or PN at the 1-year observation point. The authors demonstrated a 32% decrease in the RN group and a 6% decrease in the PN group [5]. The values reported by Tanaka et al. [6] based on follow-up at 2–4 weeks were 37 and 5%, respectively. Shirasaki et al. [7] published a study based on 1-year observation of 30 radically nephrectomized patients reporting a 33% increase of serum creatinine concentration. Cozzi et al. [8] observed 16 radically and 10 partially nephrectomized children and recorded 36 and 24% growth in serum creatinine concentration, respectively, 1 year after surgery.
Second, our study underlines the inefficiency of potential compensatory mechanisms improving renal function in the postoperative period. The non-operated kidney’s compensatory hypertrophy seems not to be associated with hyperfunction. By definition, hypertrophy entails nephron enlargement, not an increase in the number of nephrons. However, we intuitively think that hypertrophy causes hyperfunction. In 1-year observation, we observed a 4% increase in the non-operated kidney’s ERPF in radically nephrectomized patients and a 0.1% increase in partially nephrectomized patients. It is worth remembering that the operated kidney’s ERPF in partially nephrectomized patients simultaneously fell by just 25%. Finally, the deterioration of global renal function measured by the decrease in global ERPF was three times more significant in radically nephrectomized patients than in partially nephrectomized patients. Previously published studies have focused mainly on the value of renal scintigraphy in assessing renal insufficiency after renal surgery. However, they present important data for discussion of our results. The lack of significant renal compensatory mechanisms is confirmed by the study published by Groshar et al. [9] reporting no changes regarding the non-operated kidney’s renal volume and the percentage injected dose per cubic centimeter of renal tissue of operated and non-operated kidneys in 24 patients examined preoperatively and 1–6 months after partial nephrectomy. Ben-Haim et al. [10] reported a 9% increase in the non-operated kidney’s volume accompanied by a 29% increase in the percentage injected dose per cubic centimeter of renal tissue in 30 patients examined preoperatively and 2–23 months after radical nephrectomy. It is hard to ascertain the underlying cause for the results of Ben-Haim’s study and our study differing from one another in this way. The primary difference rests in the radionucleotide used for renal scintigraphy and the lack of protocol for follow-up points in Ben-Haim’s study. Another important aspect is that, even though the results of his scintigraphy were more optimistic than ours, Ben-Haim et al. reported a surprisingly more significant increase in serum creatinine concentration (49% increase). The authors concluded that compensatory hyperfunction occurs soon after surgery, which is totally at odds with our study’s findings, and that the postoperative hyperfunction remains intact for at least 1 year, which also seems to be consistent with our observations.
Our results stand in opposition to some other studies published in recent years. Anderson et al. [11] recorded a 33% increase in the non-operated kidney’s ERPF 1 week after nephrectomy in 55 patients, Bieniasz et al. [12] reported a 30% decrease in creatinine clearance in 46 patients 3 months after nephrectomy, and Goldfarb et al. [13] observed a 28% decrease in 24-h urinary creatinine clearance in 70 patients 25 years after nephrectomy. All these studies were based, however, on living kidney donors. These patients have attributes that are incomparable with renal cancer patients. Usually, they are healthy young people with a potentially greater ability for compensation.
The most important limitations of our study are the small number of patients in the PN group, the length of follow-up, and the reliance on serum creatinine concentration/eGFR as sole measure of renal function. During data collection, 18 partial and 33 radical nephrectomies were performed, illustrating the stage of renal cancer at the time of diagnosis in Poland. In the contemporary cohort, 90% of T1a patients were qualified for partial nephrectomy.
The study protocol called for three control points with the last one being 1 year after surgery. Renal function deterioration proved to be slightly more advanced 3 months after surgery compared to renal function deterioration 12 months after surgery. Although the differences between the postoperative measurements at 3 and 12 months are not statistically significant, it may be interesting that renal function significantly retarded immediately after surgery improves in subsequent months. An important question that must be posed is whether the compensatory mechanisms analyzed in our study were insufficient because of their limited capacity or because of the observation period was too short. However, even if compensation becomes effective only after the elapse of more than a year, we think our conclusions are correct.
The number of tests assessing renal function is still rising. However, in the present study, we used only creatinine serum concentration and eGFR calculated by MDRD formula. Despite their limitations, these tests are one of most commonly used in urological departments in every day practice. While we think that more specific tests would not change our results substantially, their use could consolidate our findings and increase the scientific value of the report.