Evolving Approach in Nephron-Sparing Surgery: Has Anything Changed From Open Surgery To Laparoscopy

dc.contributor.author Ergun, Muslum
dc.contributor.author Sagir, Suleyman
dc.contributor.author Akyuz, Osman
dc.contributor.author Akman, Ramazan Yavuz
dc.date.accessioned 2025-02-15T19:38:57Z
dc.date.accessioned 2025-09-17T14:28:27Z
dc.date.available 2025-02-15T19:38:57Z
dc.date.available 2025-09-17T14:28:27Z
dc.date.issued 2024
dc.description.abstract Objective: This study aimed to provide valuable insights into the comparative efficacy of different surgical approaches fornephron-sparing surgery (NSS) and contribute to the existing literature in this field. Materials and Methods: This study included patients who underwent NSS for small renal masses between January 2016 andMarch 2024. A total of 97 patients (41 in the open approach group, 56 in the laparoscopic approach group) with demographic,radiological, intraoperative, renal functional, and oncological follow-up data were included. Three different anatomical scoringsystems (R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score, PADUA score and C-index) were utilised to assess tumour location and estimate prox-imity to the hilum and collecting system. Results: In the open nephron-sparing surgery (ONSS) and laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery (LNSS) groups, the mean kid-ney tumour diameters (SD) were 5.20 +/- 2.30 and 4.90 +/- 2.10, which were similar in both surgical method groups (p= 0.061).However, tumours treated with ONSS had significantly more adverse morphometric features (p<0.05). For ONSS and LNSSgroups, the mean R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores (SD) were 6.15 +/- 2.04 and 5.2 +/- 1.4 (p= 0.032), respectively; The mean PADUAscores (SD) were 7.46 +/- 1.14 and 6.8 +/- 1.0 (p= 0.049), respectively; And the mean C-index (SD) scores were 1.39 +/- 0.4 and 1.37 +/- 0.5 (p= 0.062), respectively. No significant differences were found in the mean tumour diameter (cm) (Inter Quantile Range(IQR)) distribution of both groups (p= 0.058). Despite the slight increase in transfusion rate in the LNSS group, estimated bloodloss (EBL), transfusion rates, and length of hospital stay were similar in both groups. Conclusions: Although LNSS does not appear superior in terms of intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay and transfu-sion rate, it provides comparable long-term outcomes to ONSS. Our study suggests that when matched with nephrometry scores,LNSS can achieve similar outcomes to ONSS en_US
dc.identifier.citationcount 0
dc.identifier.doi 10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20247707.101
dc.identifier.issn 0004-0614
dc.identifier.issn 1576-8260
dc.identifier.scopus 2-s2.0-85203266843
dc.identifier.uri https://doi.org/10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20247707.101
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12514/9629
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher Iniestares, S.a. en_US
dc.rights info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess en_US
dc.subject Renal Cell Carcinoma en_US
dc.subject Partial en_US
dc.subject Laparoscopic Surgery en_US
dc.subject Open Surgery en_US
dc.subject Nephrometry en_US
dc.title Evolving Approach in Nephron-Sparing Surgery: Has Anything Changed From Open Surgery To Laparoscopy en_US
dc.type Article en_US
dspace.entity.type Publication

Files