title: Assessment of surgical margins in renal cell carcinoma after nephron sparing: a comparative study: laparoscopy vs open surgery.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  We compared the status of the peritumoral parenchyma after open and laparoscopic nephron sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma.
  
  
  METHODS
  The records of 64 consecutive patients who underwent nephron sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma of 4 cm or less were reviewed retrospectively. Patients in group 1 underwent open retroperitoneal surgery (1998 to 2000) and patients in group 2 underwent laparoscopic (transperitoneal or retro peritoneal) surgery (2001 to March 2004). A single pathologist was employed to analyze the specimens, and comparative analysis included examination of tumor size, weight, histological cell type, intraoperative histological biopsies and margin status.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The 2 groups were comparable in terms of clinical data, and mean lesion size was 31.4 mm in group 1 and 32 mm in group 2. Positive margins were found in 1 of 30 patients in group 1 and in 1 of 34 in group 2 (p = 0.9). An analysis of margins was performed by taking measurements at the minimum and maximum points of the section. The minimum mean measurement was 2 mm in group 1 and 2.08 mm in group 2 (p = 0.75). The maximum mean measurement was 4.56 mm in group 1 and 5.2 mm in group 2 (p = 0.09). The difference between minimum and maximum margin thickness was 2.56 mm in group 1 and 3.16 mm in group 2 (p = 0.04). Mean followup for group 1 was 50 months (range 30 to 72) and 16 months (range 2 to 35) for group 2. One local recurrence was recorded in group 1 and treated with radical nephrectomy, while no recurrence was recorded in group 2.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In this study we further confirmed the efficiency of resectioning lesions using laparoscopy. In our experience there is no difference between the 2 procedures in terms of efficient surgical margins. However, despite these encouraging results it is necessary to obtain more extensive followup data, which will allow us to be more specific in reporting on laparoscopic margin quality.
authors.affiliation: Division of Urology, University of Turin--San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Italy. porpiglia@libero.it
authors.forename: Francesco
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Porpiglia
authors.forename: Cristian
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Fiori
authors.forename: Carlo
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Terrone
authors.forename: Enrico
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Bollito
authors.forename: Dario
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Fontana
authors.forename: Roberto Mario
authors.initials: RM
authors.lastname: Scarpa
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001706:Biopsy; D002292:Carcinoma, Renal Cell / Q000473:pathology* / Q000601:surgery; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005629:Frozen Sections; D006801:Humans; D007430:Intraoperative Care; D007680:Kidney Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology* / Q000601:surgery; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000379:methods*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009364:Neoplasm Recurrence, Local / Q000473:pathology; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D009392:Nephrectomy / Q000379:methods*; D009399:Nephrons / Q000473:pathology* / Q000601:surgery; D012189:Retrospective Studies