Comparison of clamping strategies in minimally invasive partial nephrectomy for cT1 tumors

Abstract

Objectives

To determine whether artery only (AO) clamping promises any advantage over artery and vein (AV) clamping in patients undergoing partial nephrectomy with minimally invasive surgical techniques.

Material and methods

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 68 partial nephrectomy patients who were treated with minimally invasive techniques (robot-assisted laparoscopic or pure laparoscopic) for solitary, unilateral, cT1 renal masses during the period of 2008–2019 in a single institution. Patients were divided into two groups according to clamping strategy (AO and AV). The two groups were compared to each other in terms of perioperative outcomes and long-term functional results.

Results

The mean patient age and median follow-up period were 56.8 ± 10.8 years and 13.5 (9–44.5) months, respectively. Warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss, transfusion rate and length of hospital stay were similar between the two groups, while operative time was significantly higher in the AO clamping group (p = .726, p = .604, p = .675, p = .103, and p = .038, respectively). Patients who underwent AV clamping had a significantly lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and higher chronic kidney disease rates six months postoperatively (p = .001 and p = .044, respectively) and at the last follow-up (p = .020 and p = .048, respectively). The percentage of eGFR change at six months and the last follow-up was higher in the AV clamp group but the difference was not statistically significant (p = .056 and p = .082, respectively).

Conclusions

Our findings suggest AO clamping is safe and comparable to AV clamping. In our study, AO clamping was found to be superior to AV in terms of long-term eGFR preservation.

Keywords:

• Nephron sparing surgery
• minimally invasive partial nephrectomy
• hilar clamping
• laparoscopic partial nephrectomy
• renal artery clamping
• renal artery–vein clamping
• warm ischemia time

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.