Search

The foundations of the generally accepted principles underlying the surgical management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) were best annunciated in 1969 by Robson in his classic description of the radical nephrectomy [J Urol 1969;101;297]. Since then, much has changed in our understanding of the basic biology and genetics of kidney cancer, advances in renal imaging and clinical staging have led to the increased detection of incidental, lower stage, organ-confined tumors more amendable to expanded surgical options, surgical techniques themselves have evolved, and surgical equipment technology has advanced to make possible new methods of managing renal tumors in situ. Thus, the management of both localized and metastatic RCC has changed dramatically in the last 20 years, predicated on these major advancements in renal imaging, surgical techniques, and the development of effective immunotherapies for advanced disease. In this review, the evolution in thinking regarding the tenets of the radical nephrectomy will be examined, including the necessity for removal of the entire kidney, the possibility of sparing the adrenal gland, when and how extensive a lymphadenectomy should be performed, the development of laparoscopic and percutaneous nephron-sparing surgery using ablative technologies, and the role of nephrectomy and metastasectomy in patients with metastatic RCC. Here, we review current concepts and outcomes on the surgical management of RCC to help elucidate some of these changes, from the evolution of open to laparoscopic to percutaneous, from radical to partial to ablative approaches. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Objective: To analyse through a large multicentre series, morbidity of nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) in relation to tumour size and surgical indication. Methods: The study included patients from eight international academic centres. Age, sex, TNM stage, tumour size, Fuhrman grade, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS), surgical margins, local and distant recurrences, and overall and cancer-specific survival rates were collected and analysed. Indication for elective or mandatory NSS, medical and surgical complication rates, mean blood loss, blood transfusion, and length of hospital stay were specifically recorded for the purpose of this study. Groups were compared for qualitative and quantitative variables by using χ2 (Fischer exact test) and Student t tests, respectively. Results: A total of 1048 NSS procedures were included in this study. Mean tumour size was 3.4±2.1cm. In 730 elective procedures mean operative time (p =0.002), mean blood loss (p =0.01), the need for blood transfusion (p =0.001), and urinary fistula rate (p =0.01) were significantly increased for tumours >4cm. However, these differences did not result in significantly increased medical (p =0.4), surgical complication rates (p =0.6), or length of hospital stay (p =0.9). Finally, in elective procedures for malignant tumours, positive surgical margins, local or distant recurrence rates, and cancer-specific survival were not significantly different in tumours ≤4cm and >4cm. Conclusion: Excellent cancer control and outcomes can be achieved with NSS in carefully selected patients with tumours >4cm. Expanding the size indication of elective NSS results in an increased but acceptable morbidity. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]