A matched-cohort comparison of laparoscopic renal cryoablation using ultra-thin cryoprobes with open partial nephrectomy for the treatment of small renal cell carcinoma.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of performing laparoscopic renal cryoablation (LRC) for the treatment of RCC, as compared with open partial nephrectomy (OPN), which is the established NSS.


METHODS
From April 2004, among the patients who underwent LRC with a 1.47 mm cryoprobe, we enrolled 20 patients who were pathologically confirmed as having RCC with a tumor size smaller than 4 cm. These patients were matched with a group of 20 patients, who were selected based on the pre-operative characteristics of the tumor and those of the patients, from a pre-existing database of the patients who underwent OPN during the same period.


RESULTS
The mean age and tumor size were 56.3+/-11.5 years and 2.4+/-1.7 cm in the LRC group, and 57.6+/-10.9 years and 2.2+/-1.1 cm in the OPN group. The two groups were similar for their age, gender, BMI, ASA, the tumor characteristics and the indications for operation. While the pathologic results and the operation time showed similarity, the EBL (98+/-87 ml vs 351+/-147 ml, respectively, p=0.001), the transfusion rate (10% vs 40%, respectively, p=0.03) and the hospital stay (4.2+/-1.5 days vs 8.2+/-2.4 days, respectively, p=0.005) were significantly less in the LRC group. Major complications did not occur in the LRC group, but in the OPN group, one patient experienced urine leakage and one patient had a perirenal hematoma. During the mean follow up of 27.3+/-10.8 months and 28.7+/-14.9 months for each group, respectively, all the patients remained disease-free with no evidence of local recurrence or metastases.


CONCLUSIONS
LRC using ultra-thin cryoprobes for the treatment of small RCC showed similar effective oncologic results with the merits of minimal invasiveness, as compared with OPN, during the intermediate term follow up.
Ko
Young Hwii
YH
Department of Urology, Korea University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Park
Hong Seok
HS
Moon
Du Geon
du G
Lee
Jeong Gu
JG
Kim
Je Jong
JJ
Yoon
Duck Ki
DK
Kang
Seok Ho
SH
Cheon
Jun
J
J Urol. 2005 Jun;173(6):2160-5
15879879
Urology. 2007 Mar;69(3):448-51
17382142
Urology. 2006 Jan;67(1):50-4
16413331
Urology. 2006 May;67(5):918-22
16698352
Urology. 2006 Jun;67(6):1169-74; discussion 1174
16765174
J Urol. 2000 Feb;163(2):442-5
10647650
Curr Opin Urol. 2005 Sep;15(5):298-305
16093852
Eur Urol. 2007 Apr;51(4):971-9
17084515
J Urol. 2002 Feb;167(2 Pt 1):469-7; discussion 475-6
11792899
Curr Urol Rep. 2008 Jan;9(1):34-43
18366972
BJU Int. 2005 Jun;95(9):1187-91
15892798
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Nov;189(5):W264-71
17954623
J Urol. 2004 Feb;171(2 Pt 1):553-60
14713759
J Urol. 2003 Jul;170(1):64-8
12796646
J Urol. 2006 Apr;175(4):1225-9; discussion 1229
16515964
J Endourol. 2007 Dec;21(12):1493-6
18186689
Urology. 2005 Nov;66(5 Suppl):23-8
16194703
Urology. 2002 Dec;60(6):1003-9
12475658
Urology. 2006 Jul;68(1 Suppl):7-13
16857454
Urology. 2008 Jan;71(1):113-7
18242377
J Urol. 2004 Oct;172(4 Pt 1):1267-70
15371821
J Urol. 2004 Sep;172(3):871-3
15310986
Urology. 2000 Jul;56(1):58-62
10869624
J Urol. 2005 Jun;173(6):1903-7
15879772
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005 Jun;16(6):765-78
15947040