Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparisons of percutaneous versus retroperitoneoscopic cryoablation for renal masses

  • Urology - Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 18 September 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

Purpose

Preserving renal function and controlling oncological outcomes are pertinent while managing renal tumours. We compared outcomes of percutaneous cryoablation (PCA) and retroperitoneoscopic cryoablation (RCA) in patients with renal neoplasms.

Methods

We identified 108 patients with renal tumours at two medical centres, where 63 patients received PCA and 45 patients underwent RCA from August 2009 to July 2015, and they were followed up until February 2017. We compared preoperative and postoperative parameters, namely gender, systemic diseases, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index (BMI), haemoglobin, the estimated glomerular filtration rate, tumour size, operative time, tumour type, Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications, and tumour recurrence, by using an independent sample t test, Pearson’s Chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, a Mann–Whitney test, and a generalised linear model.

Results

Based on baseline characteristics, we found that the patients in the PCA group were older and had higher BMI than those in the RCA group, whereas the patients in the RCA group had more comorbidities than those in the PCA group. Retroperitoneoscopic and percutaneous methods had similar operative times, blood transfusion rates, postoperative fever episodes, and complication rates for either minor or major complications. However, the percutaneous method was associated with a shorter length of stay. No patient experienced deterioration in renal function until 2 years after both procedures. Impaired renal function was found in both groups in the 3-year follow-up. In both groups, tumour recurrence was significant for tumours > 4 cm.

Conclusions

Our results confirm that both cryoablation methods (PCA and RCA) are safe and effective for renal cell carcinoma. Favourable oncological control was achieved in both groups if the renal tumour size was ≤ 4 cm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 18 September 2018

    In the original publication, Prof. Lin-Nei Hsu’s institution was incorrectly published as ‘Tainan Municipal An-Nan Hospital’ in affiliation 4. The correct affiliation should read as ‘Department of Urology, An-Nan Hospital, China Medical University, Tainan, Taiwan’.

References

  1. Kane CJ et al (2008) Renal cell cancer stage migration: analysis of the National Cancer Data Base. Cancer 113(1):78–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sahni VA, Silverman SG (2014) Imaging management of incidentally detected small renal masses. Semin Interv Radiol 31(1):9–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Remzi M, Javadli E, Ozsoy M (2010) Management of small renal masses: a review. World J Urol 28(3):275–281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Volpe A et al (2011) Contemporary management of small renal masses. Eur Urol 60(3):501–515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jewett MAS et al (2015) Canadian guidelines for the management of small renal masses (SRM). Can Urol Assoc J 9(5–6):160–163

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Mennitto A et al (2017) Multimodal treatment of advanced renal cancer in 2017. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 10(12):1395–1402

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Klatte T et al (2011) Laparoscopic cryoablation versus partial nephrectomy for the treatment of small renal masses: systematic review and cumulative analysis of observational studies. Eur Urol 60(3):435–443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mason RJ et al (2017) Renal functional outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous cryoablation or partial nephrectomy for a solitary renal mass. BJU Int 120(4):544–549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lai WJ et al (2015) Percutaneous computed tomography-guided cryoablation for renal tumor: experience in 30 cases. J Chin Med Assoc 78(5):308–315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bhindi B et al (2018) Outcomes after cryoablation versus partial nephrectomy for sporadic renal tumors in a solitary kidney: a propensity score analysis. Eur Urol 73(2):254–259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Brashears JH 3rd et al (2005) Renal cryoablation and radio frequency ablation: an evaluation of worst case scenarios in a porcine model. J Urol 173(6):2160–2165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Allaf ME et al (2005) Pain control requirements for percutaneous ablation of renal tumors: cryoablation versus radiofrequency ablation-initial observations. Radiology 237(1):366–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Campbell SC et al (2009) Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass. J Urol 182(4):1271–1279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Anderson CJ, Havranek EG (2004) Minimally invasive ablative techniques in renal cancer. BJU Int 93(6):707–709

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Berger A et al (2008) Minimally invasive nephron-sparing surgery. Curr Opin Urol 18(5):462–466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Haramis G et al (2012) Retrospective comparison of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic renal cryoablation for small (< 3.5 cm) cortical renal masses. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 22(2):152–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ahmad M et al (2017) Cryoablation of renal angiomyolipoma: an evaluation of safety and efficacy. J Endourol 31(11):1117–1122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Azevedo AAP et al (2018) Image-guided percutaneous renal cryoablation: five years experience, results and follow-up. Eur J Radiol 100:14–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kunkle DA, Uzzo RG (2008) Cryoablation or radiofrequency ablation of the small renal mass: a meta-analysis. Cancer 113(10):2671–2680

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Hegarty NJ et al (2006) Probe-ablative nephron-sparing surgery: cryoablation versus radiofrequency ablation. Urology 68(1 Suppl):7–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gage AA, Baust J (1998) Mechanisms of tissue injury in cryosurgery. Cryobiology 37(3):171–186

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhuang J et al (2015) The application of PADUA scoring system for predicting complications of laparoscopic renal cryoablation. Int Urol Nephrol 47(5):781–788

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chiang PH, Su HH (2013) Randomized and prospective trial comparing tract creation using plasma vaporization with balloon dilatation in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. BJU Int 112(1):89–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hommos MS, Glassock RJ, Rule AD (2017) Structural and functional changes in human kidneys with healthy aging. J Am Soc Nephrol. https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2017040421

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Denic A, Glassock RJ, Rule AD (2016) Structural and functional changes with the aging kidney. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 23(1):19–28

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Aoun HD et al (2017) Percutaneous cryoablation of renal tumors: is it time for a new paradigm shift? J Vasc Interv Radiol 28(10):1363–1370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tanagho YS et al (2013) Renal cryoablation versus robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: Washington university long-term experience. J Endourol 27(12):1477–1486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gill IS et al (2005) Renal cryoablation: outcome at 3 years. J Urol 173(6):1903–1907

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Aron M et al (2010) Laparoscopic renal cryoablation: 8-year, single surgeon outcomes. J Urol 183(3):889–895

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Finley DS et al (2008) Percutaneous and laparoscopic cryoablation of small renal masses. J Urol 180(2):492–498 discussion 498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Duffey B et al (2012) Intermediate-term outcomes after renal cryoablation: results of a multi-institutional study. J Endourol 26(1):15–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lehman DS et al (2008) First prize (tie): laparoscopic renal cryoablation: efficacy and complications for larger renal masses. J Endourol 22(6):1123–1127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the Biostatistics Center at KCGMH for the statistics work. This manuscript was edited by Wallace Academic Editing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

    Hui-Ying Liu & Po-Hui Chiang

  2. Department of Radiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan

    Shu-Huei Shen

  3. School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Shu-Huei Shen

  4. Department of Urology, Tainan Municipal An-Nan Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan

    Lin-Nei Hsu

Authors
  1. Hui-Ying Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shu-Huei Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lin-Nei Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Po-Hui Chiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Po-Hui Chiang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No financial conflicts of interest related to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, HY., Shen, SH., Hsu, LN. et al. Comparisons of percutaneous versus retroperitoneoscopic cryoablation for renal masses. Int Urol Nephrol 50, 1407–1415 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-018-1925-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-018-1925-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation