Objective:To conduct a meta-analysis assessing the perioperative,functional and oncological outcomes of partial nephrectomy(PN)and radical nephrectomy(RN)for T1b tumours.The primary endpoints were the oncological outc...Objective:To conduct a meta-analysis assessing the perioperative,functional and oncological outcomes of partial nephrectomy(PN)and radical nephrectomy(RN)for T1b tumours.The primary endpoints were the oncological outcomes.The secondary endpoints were the perioperative and functional outcomes.Methods:A systematic literature review was performed by searching multiple databases through February 2019 to identify eligible comparative studies according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement.Identified reports were assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for nonrandomized controlled trials.Results:Overall,13 retrospective cohort studies were included in the analysis.Patients undergoing PN were younger(weighted mean difference[WMD]3.49 years,95%confidence interval[CI]5.16 to1.82;p<0.0001)and had smaller masses(WMD0.45 cm,95%CI0.59 to0.31;p<0.0001).There were no differences in the oncological outcome,which was demonstrated by progression-free survival(hazard ratio[HR]0.70;pZ0.22),cancerspecific mortality(HR 0.91;pZ0.57)and all-cause mortality(HR 1.01;pZ0.96).The two procedures were similar in estimated blood loss(WMD16.47 mL;pZ0.53)and postoperative complications(risk ratio[RR]1.32;pZ0.10),and PN provided better renal function preservation and was related to a lower likelihood of chronic kidney disease onset(RR 0.38;pZ0.006).Conclusion:PN is an effective treatment for T1b tumours because it offers similar surgical morbidity,equivalent cancer control,and better renal preservation compared to RN.展开更多
目的比较单孔腹腔镜根治性肾切除术(LESS-RN)与传统腹腔镜根治性肾切除术(CL-RN)后至少10年的局限性肾癌患者肿瘤疗效和肾功能结局。方法选取2009-2012年在海军军医大学(第二军医大学)第一附属医院接受LESS-RN或CL-RN治疗的T1a~T2a期局...目的比较单孔腹腔镜根治性肾切除术(LESS-RN)与传统腹腔镜根治性肾切除术(CL-RN)后至少10年的局限性肾癌患者肿瘤疗效和肾功能结局。方法选取2009-2012年在海军军医大学(第二军医大学)第一附属医院接受LESS-RN或CL-RN治疗的T1a~T2a期局限性肾癌患者,按患者年龄、BMI、肿瘤大小进行倾向评分匹配,共纳入31对患者,分析患者的基线特征、手术数据、病理结果和随访信息,以评估LESS-RN和CL-RN的长期预后差异。结果LESS-RN组与CL-RN组患者在手术时间[(179.7±43.0)min vs(172.6±50.9)min,P=0.349]、估计失血量[100(50,200)mL vs 100(50,150)mL,P=0.871]、住院时间[6(5,7)d vs 7(6,9)d,P=0.080]方面差异均无统计学意义。LESS-RN组有1例患者发生术中并发症,没有患者发生术后并发症;CL-RN组有1例患者发生术中并发症,3例患者发生术后并发症。LESS-RN组随访时间为(138.0±9.0)个月,CL-RN组为(137.8±9.8)个月(P=0.730)。LESS-RN组与CL-RN组患者总生存率(80.6%vs 74.2%,P=0.181)、肿瘤特异性生存率(93.6%vs 96.8%,P=0.554)、血肌酐变化水平[32(17,45)μmol/L vs 20(5,47)μmol/L,P=0.098]和估算的肾小球滤过率[(60.2±20.9)mL·min^(-1)·(1.73 m^(2))^(-1) vs(66.7±27.8)mL·min^(-1)·(1.73 m^(2))^(-1),P=0.342]差异均无统计学意义。结论LESS-RN是一种安全、可行的治疗局限性肾癌的手术方法,其长期肿瘤疗效和肾功能结局与CL-RN相当。展开更多
目的:应用R.E.N.A.L.肾功能评分系统进行配对分析,比较腹膜后腹腔镜肾部分切除术(Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy,LPN)与机器人肾部分切除术(Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy,RPN)的围手术期疗效。方法:对2016年1月—2020年3月54...目的:应用R.E.N.A.L.肾功能评分系统进行配对分析,比较腹膜后腹腔镜肾部分切除术(Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy,LPN)与机器人肾部分切除术(Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy,RPN)的围手术期疗效。方法:对2016年1月—2020年3月543例于浙江大学医学院附属第一医院泌尿外科行腹腔镜及机器人辅助肾部分切除术患者的相关临床资料进行分析。根据R.E.N.A.L.肾功能评分、性别和年龄进行1∶1配对(112对配对),通过统计分析对围手术期结果进行比较。结果:LPN组和RPN组在年龄、性别、体重指数(Body Mass Index,BMI)、肿瘤大小、美国麻醉学家协会(American Society of Anesthesiologists,ASA)评分和术前估算肾小球滤过率(Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate,eGFR)方面均无显著差异。接受LPN的患者左侧肿瘤所占比例略高(51.7%Vs42.9%,P=0.032)。两组在手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间(Length of Stay,LOS)、术后eGFR、输血量和/或术后并发症等方面均无显著差异。RPN组热缺血时间(Warm Ischemia Time,WIT)明显比LPN组短(18.9 min Vs22.6 min,P=0.032)。以复杂性为特点的亚集分析显示,复杂肿瘤RPN的WIT显著短于LPN(21.1 min Vs 26.3 min,P=0.012),而单纯性肿瘤RPN与LPN的WIT差异无统计学意义(16.4 min Vs 18.3 min,P=0.085)。结论:经腹膜后RPN手术时间较经腹膜后LPN短,但二者围手术期效果基本相同。在有限的腹膜后工作空间内进行复杂的肿瘤切除和修补,机器人辅助手术可能比传统的腹腔镜术更具优势。展开更多
目的:系统评价加速康复外科理念在腹腔镜肾癌根治术围手术期中的应用价值。方法:搜索PubMed、Cochrane library、Embase、CBM、CNKI、万方数据库、维普数据库中,截至2022年5月比较加速康复外科理念(Enhanced recovery after surgery,ER...目的:系统评价加速康复外科理念在腹腔镜肾癌根治术围手术期中的应用价值。方法:搜索PubMed、Cochrane library、Embase、CBM、CNKI、万方数据库、维普数据库中,截至2022年5月比较加速康复外科理念(Enhanced recovery after surgery,ERAS)和传统康复外科管理模式应用于腹腔镜肾癌根治术的临床研究。由2位独立审查者进行文献筛选、资料数据收集及文献质量评价,运用RevMan 5.4版本进行数据分析。结果:共纳入14篇相关文献,9篇为随机对照研究,5篇为回顾性队列研究,共1339例患者。ERAS组636例,传统康复外科组703例。Meta分析结果示,在围手术期应用ERAS的患者术后首次排气时间[SMD=-2.54,95%CI(-3.34,-1.75),P<0.00001]、首次进食时间[SMD=-2.97,95%CI(-3.42,-1.91),P<0.00001]、首次下床活动时间[SMD=-3.00,95%CI(-3.62,-2.38),P<0.00001]、术后拔除导尿管[SMD=-3.17,95%CI(-4.62,-1.71),P<0.00001]及拔除引流管时间[SMD=-2.36,95%CI(-3.15,-1.56),P<0.00001]更早,术后住院时间更短[MD=-2.76,95%CI(-3.63,-1.88),P<0.00001],术后并发症总发生率更低[MD=0.51,95%CI(0.38,0.68),P<0.00001],住院费用更少[MD=-0.53,95%CI(-0.64,-0.43),P<0.00001],但两组手术时间[MD=-1.16,95%CI(-2.77,0.45),P=0.16]及术中出血量[MD=-0.99,95%CI(-2.51,0.54),P=0.21]比较,差异无统计学意义。结论:ERAS应用于腹腔镜肾癌根治术可明显加快患者术后恢复,同时减少患者术后住院时间、住院费用、并降低了患者术后并发症的发生率,由于可用的研究数量少及其潜在的异质性,上述结论仍需更多的高质量研究进行验证。展开更多
文摘Objective:To conduct a meta-analysis assessing the perioperative,functional and oncological outcomes of partial nephrectomy(PN)and radical nephrectomy(RN)for T1b tumours.The primary endpoints were the oncological outcomes.The secondary endpoints were the perioperative and functional outcomes.Methods:A systematic literature review was performed by searching multiple databases through February 2019 to identify eligible comparative studies according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement.Identified reports were assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for nonrandomized controlled trials.Results:Overall,13 retrospective cohort studies were included in the analysis.Patients undergoing PN were younger(weighted mean difference[WMD]3.49 years,95%confidence interval[CI]5.16 to1.82;p<0.0001)and had smaller masses(WMD0.45 cm,95%CI0.59 to0.31;p<0.0001).There were no differences in the oncological outcome,which was demonstrated by progression-free survival(hazard ratio[HR]0.70;pZ0.22),cancerspecific mortality(HR 0.91;pZ0.57)and all-cause mortality(HR 1.01;pZ0.96).The two procedures were similar in estimated blood loss(WMD16.47 mL;pZ0.53)and postoperative complications(risk ratio[RR]1.32;pZ0.10),and PN provided better renal function preservation and was related to a lower likelihood of chronic kidney disease onset(RR 0.38;pZ0.006).Conclusion:PN is an effective treatment for T1b tumours because it offers similar surgical morbidity,equivalent cancer control,and better renal preservation compared to RN.
文摘目的比较单孔腹腔镜根治性肾切除术(LESS-RN)与传统腹腔镜根治性肾切除术(CL-RN)后至少10年的局限性肾癌患者肿瘤疗效和肾功能结局。方法选取2009-2012年在海军军医大学(第二军医大学)第一附属医院接受LESS-RN或CL-RN治疗的T1a~T2a期局限性肾癌患者,按患者年龄、BMI、肿瘤大小进行倾向评分匹配,共纳入31对患者,分析患者的基线特征、手术数据、病理结果和随访信息,以评估LESS-RN和CL-RN的长期预后差异。结果LESS-RN组与CL-RN组患者在手术时间[(179.7±43.0)min vs(172.6±50.9)min,P=0.349]、估计失血量[100(50,200)mL vs 100(50,150)mL,P=0.871]、住院时间[6(5,7)d vs 7(6,9)d,P=0.080]方面差异均无统计学意义。LESS-RN组有1例患者发生术中并发症,没有患者发生术后并发症;CL-RN组有1例患者发生术中并发症,3例患者发生术后并发症。LESS-RN组随访时间为(138.0±9.0)个月,CL-RN组为(137.8±9.8)个月(P=0.730)。LESS-RN组与CL-RN组患者总生存率(80.6%vs 74.2%,P=0.181)、肿瘤特异性生存率(93.6%vs 96.8%,P=0.554)、血肌酐变化水平[32(17,45)μmol/L vs 20(5,47)μmol/L,P=0.098]和估算的肾小球滤过率[(60.2±20.9)mL·min^(-1)·(1.73 m^(2))^(-1) vs(66.7±27.8)mL·min^(-1)·(1.73 m^(2))^(-1),P=0.342]差异均无统计学意义。结论LESS-RN是一种安全、可行的治疗局限性肾癌的手术方法,其长期肿瘤疗效和肾功能结局与CL-RN相当。
文摘目的:应用R.E.N.A.L.肾功能评分系统进行配对分析,比较腹膜后腹腔镜肾部分切除术(Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy,LPN)与机器人肾部分切除术(Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy,RPN)的围手术期疗效。方法:对2016年1月—2020年3月543例于浙江大学医学院附属第一医院泌尿外科行腹腔镜及机器人辅助肾部分切除术患者的相关临床资料进行分析。根据R.E.N.A.L.肾功能评分、性别和年龄进行1∶1配对(112对配对),通过统计分析对围手术期结果进行比较。结果:LPN组和RPN组在年龄、性别、体重指数(Body Mass Index,BMI)、肿瘤大小、美国麻醉学家协会(American Society of Anesthesiologists,ASA)评分和术前估算肾小球滤过率(Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate,eGFR)方面均无显著差异。接受LPN的患者左侧肿瘤所占比例略高(51.7%Vs42.9%,P=0.032)。两组在手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间(Length of Stay,LOS)、术后eGFR、输血量和/或术后并发症等方面均无显著差异。RPN组热缺血时间(Warm Ischemia Time,WIT)明显比LPN组短(18.9 min Vs22.6 min,P=0.032)。以复杂性为特点的亚集分析显示,复杂肿瘤RPN的WIT显著短于LPN(21.1 min Vs 26.3 min,P=0.012),而单纯性肿瘤RPN与LPN的WIT差异无统计学意义(16.4 min Vs 18.3 min,P=0.085)。结论:经腹膜后RPN手术时间较经腹膜后LPN短,但二者围手术期效果基本相同。在有限的腹膜后工作空间内进行复杂的肿瘤切除和修补,机器人辅助手术可能比传统的腹腔镜术更具优势。
