Do patients with Stage 3–5 chronic kidney disease benefit from ischaemia‐sparing techniques during partial nephrectomy?. (26th December 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Beksac, Alp Tuna; Okhawere, Kennedy E.; Rosen, Daniel C.; Elbakry, Amr; Dayal, Bheesham D.; Daza, Jorge; Sfakianos, John P.; Ronney, Abaza; Eun, Daniel D.; Bhandari, Akshay; Hemal, Ashok K.; Porter, James; Stifelman, Michael D.; Badani, Ketan K.
• Is Part Of: BJU international. Volume 125:Number 3(2020)
• Page Start: 442
• Page End: 448
• Publication Date: 2019-12-26
• Subjects: chronic kidney disease -- functional outcome -- glomerular filtration rate -- off‐clamping -- partial nephrectomy -- selective clamping; Genitourinary organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Genitourinary organs -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Urology -- Periodicals; 616.6
• DOI: 10.1111/bju.14956
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1464-4096

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To analyse whether selective arterial clamping (SAC) and off‐clamp (OC) techniques during robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) are associated with a renal functional benefit in patients with Stage 3–5 chronic kidney disease (CKD). Patients and methods: The change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over time was compared between 462 patients with baseline CKD 3–5 that underwent RPN with main arterial clamping (MAC) ( n = 375, 81.2%), SAC ( n = 48, 10.4%) or OC ( n = 39, 8.4%) using a multivariable linear mixed‐effects model. All follow‐up eGFRs, including baseline and follow‐up between 3 and 24 months, were included in the model for analysis. The median follow‐up was 12.0 months (interquartile range 6.7–16.5; range 3.0–24.0 months). Results: In the multivariable linear mixed‐effects model adjusting for characteristics including tumour size and the R.E.N.A.L. (Radius; Exophytic/Endophytic; Nearness; Anterior/Posterior; Location) Nephrometry Score, the change in eGFR over time was not significantly different between SAC and MAC RPN (β = −1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] −5.45, 3.06; P = 0.582) and OC and MAC RPN (β = −1.57, 95% CI −5.21, 2.08; P = 0.400). Only 20 (15 MAC, two SAC, three OC) patients overall had progression of their CKD stage at last follow‐up. The mean ischaemia time was 17 min for MAC and 15 min for SAC. There was no benefit to SAC or OC in terms of blood loss, perioperative complications, length of stay, or surgical margins. Conclusion: SAC and OC techniques during RPN were not associated with benefit in preservation of eGFR in patients with baseline CKD.