Search

In this issue of European Urology, Klatte et al [1] provide a comprehensive and balanced evaluation of current knowledge of the renal surgical anatomy and related surgical strategies during contemporary partial nephrectomy (PN). With the advent and widespread uptake of minimally invasive surgery, and in particular robotic surgery, we have fortunately witnessed a steady increase in the rate of PN for the management of small renal masses over the last decade [2]. As pointed out in this collaborative review, a complete understanding of underlying normal and aberrant renal anatomy, coupled with patientand tumor-specific anatomical characteristics, defined by aptly performed crosssectional imaging, represents the foundation for proper preoperative surgical planning for state-of-the-art PN in 2015. Currently available standardized nephrometry systems allow clinicians to summarize imaging data into a simple and reproducible complexity score forecasting surgical difficulties [3]. It could be speculated that they might represent a purely academic exercise. In this respect, it remains to be determined to what extent standardized nephrometry systems are applied in current daily clinical practice. However, growing evidence suggests that they allow, at least to some extent, the prediction of surgical, pathologic, oncologic, and functional outcomes, as Klatte and co-authors appropriately remind us [1]. However, it is certainly fair to state that despite their elaborate designs, current nephrometry scores do not always capture the entire clinical picture, and two tumors with similar nephrometry scores do not necessarily pose the same technical challenges. As an example, a 2-cm, left-sided, lower-pole exophytic renal neoplasm (RENAL score 4a) is potentially far simpler to resect than a similarsized, right-sided, upper-pole posterior renal neoplasm (RENAL score 4p). To clarify this further, suppose the former patient is a 35-yr-old female with a body mass index (BMI) of 20 kg/m and the latter is a 50-yr-old man with a large fatty liver and BMI of 50 kg/m. Despite relatively similar tumor complexity scores, the two procedures could not be more dissimilar in term of challenges faced by the surgeon. Assessment of the tumor surface area in contact with the unaffected renal parenchyma is a relatively novel concept and, despite the limitations of the initial study, may also have a role in preoperative planning [4]. The goals of a PN procedure are oncologic safety and functional preservation with minimal complications, and any strategy to improve these outcomes should be pursued. Application of minimally invasive surgical techniques to PN has certainly translated into a reduction in postoperative recovery time [5]. Complete tumor excision with maximal parenchymal preservation and negative surgical margins is a universally acknowledged concept in parenchymasparing oncologic surgery. As for open surgery in the past, experts have been debating about the two main strategies for robotic surgery: a formal PN procedure, in which a (possibly minimal) amount of peritumoral parenchyma is resected (and sacrificed), versus enucleation of the mass, whereby unaffected renal parenchyma is completely spared but with some inherent risks of non-radicality. With regard to functional outcomes, although we have witnessed a plethora of technical PNmodifications in recent years, some basic elements of PN have not changed for E U RO P E AN URO LOGY 6 8 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 9 9 3 – 9 9 5