Functional Comparison of Renal Tumor Enucleation Versus Standard Partial Nephrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Tumor enucleation (TE) optimizes parenchymal preservation and could yield better function than standard partial nephrectomy (SPN), although data on this are conflicting. OBJECTIVE: To compare functional outcomes for TE and SPN strategies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients managed with partial nephrectomy (PN) with necessary data for analysis of preservation of ipsilateral parenchymal mass (IPM) and global glomerular filtration rate (GFR) from two centers were included. All studies were required <2 mo before and 3-12 mo after surgery. Patients with a solitary kidney or multifocal tumors were excluded. INTERVENTION: Partial nephrectomy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Vascularized IPM was estimated from contrast-enhanced CT scans preoperatively and postoperatively. Serum creatinine-based estimates of global GFR were also obtained in the same timeframes. Univariable and multivariable linear regression evaluated factors associated with new-baseline global GFR. RESULTS/LIMITATIONS: Analysis included 71 TE and 373 SPN cases. The median preoperative global GFR was comparable for TE and SPN (75 vs 78ml/min/1.73m2; p=0.6). The median tumor size was 3.0cm for TE and 3.3cm for SPN (p=0.03). The median RENAL score was 7 in both cohorts. For TE, warm ischemia and zero ischemia were used in 51% and 49% of cases, respectively. For SPN, warm ischemia and cold ischemia were used in 72% and 28% of patients, respectively. Capsular closure was performed in 46% of TE and 100% of SPN cases (p<0.001). Positive margins were found in 8.5% of TE and 4.8% of SPN patients (p=0.2). The median vascularized IPM preserved was 95% (interquartile range [IQR] 91-100%) for TE and 84% (IQR 76-92%) for SPN (p<0.001). The median global GFR preserved was 101%(IQR 93-111%) and 89% (IQR 81-96%) for TE and SPN, respectively (p<0.001). On multivariable analysis, resection strategy, preoperative GFR, and vascularized IPM preserved were all significantly associated (p<0.001) with new-baseline global GFR. Limitations include the retrospective design and the lack of resection outcome data. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that TE has potential for maximum IPM preservation compared to SPN and may provide optimized functional recovery. Further investigation will be required to evaluate the clinical significance of these findings. PATIENT SUMMARY: Tumor enucleation for kidney cancer involves dissection along the tumor capsule and optimally preserves normal kidney tissue, which may lead to better functional recovery. The importance of this approach in various clinical settings will require further investigation.

Functional Implications of Renal Tumor Enucleation Relative to Standard Partial Nephrectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the surgical precision for optimizing nephron-mass preservation of tumor enucleation (TE) vs standard partial nephrectomy (SPN), with primary focus on functional outcomes. TE is presumed to optimize preservation of parenchymal mass and function but this has not yet been rigorously studied and quantified. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Robotic partial nephrectomy patients who had appropriate pre- and postoperative studies for analysis of parenchymal mass preservation specific to the operated kidney were included. Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging and estimated glomerular filtration rate were required to be <2 months prior and 4-12 months after surgery. Parenchymal mass preservation and surgical precision were estimated for each technique, with precision defined as actual postoperative parenchymal volume or predicted postoperative parenchymal volume, presuming loss of a 5 mm rim of parenchyma associated with tumor excision and reconstruction. RESULTS: Analysis included 57 TE and 53 SPN. Median age, body mass index, and tumor size were comparable. Percent parenchymal mass preserved in the operated kidney with TE was 96% (interquartile range [IQR] = 90-100) vs 89% (IQR = 83-96) for SPN (P = .003). Precision of excision or reconstruction was 101% (IQR = 96-105) for TE vs 94% (IQR = 88-100) for SPN (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, only TE correlated with improved surgical precision (coefficient = 6.7, 95% confidence interval = 1.6-11.8, P = .01). Although preservation of global renal function also favored TE, the differences were marginal (96% vs 93%), and statistical significance was not observed (P = .2). CONCLUSION: Our analysis, which specifically focuses on the functional implications of TE, demonstrates that TE maximally spares normal parenchyma compared to SPN. Thus far, functional differences remain marginal and not statistically significant. Clinical significance of these findings in various clinical settings will require further investigation.