Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Oct;35(10):1557-1568.
doi: 10.1007/s00345-017-2040-6. Epub 2017 May 5.

Minimally invasive vs open nephrectomy in the modern era: does approach matter?

Affiliations

Minimally invasive vs open nephrectomy in the modern era: does approach matter?

David M Golombos et al. World J Urol. 2017 Oct.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate if the widespread adoption of a minimally invasive approach to radical nephrectomy has affected short- and long-term patient outcomes in the modern era.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent radical nephrectomy from 2001 to 2012 was conducted using the US National Cancer Institute Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program and Medicare insurance program database. Patients who underwent open surgery were compared to those who underwent minimally invasive surgery using propensity score matching.

Results: 10,739 (85.9%) underwent open surgery and 1776 (14.1%) underwent minimally invasive surgery. Minimally invasive surgery increased from 18.4% from 2001-2004 to 43.5% from 2009 to 2012. After median follow-up of 57.1 months, minimally invasive radical nephrectomy conferred long-term oncologic efficacy in terms of overall (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.75-0.95) survival and cancer-specific (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.54-0.86) survival compared to open radical nephrectomy. Minimally invasive surgery was associated with lower risk of inpatient death [risk ratio (RR) 0.45 with 95% CI: (0.20-0.99), p = 0.04], deep vein thrombosis [RR: 0.35 (0.18-0.69), p = 0.002], respiratory complications [RR: 0.73 (0.60-0.89), p = 0.001], infectious complications [RR: 0.35 (0.14-0.90), p = 0.02], acute kidney injury [RR: 0.66 (0.52-0.84), p < 0.001], sepsis [RR: 0.55 (0.31-0.98), p = 0.04], prolonged length of stay (18.6 vs 30.0%, p < 0.001), and ICU admission (19.7 vs 26.3%, p < 0.001). Costs were similar between the two approaches (30-day costs $15,882 vs $15,564; p = 0.70).

Conclusion: After widespread adoption of minimally invasive approaches to radical nephrectomy across the United States, oncologic standards remain preserved with improved perioperative outcomes at no additional cost burden.

Keywords: Cost analysis; Laparoscopic; Minimally invasive surgery; Nephrectomy; Renal cell carcinoma; Robotic.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Value Health. 2011 Jan;14(1):41-52 - PubMed
    1. BJU Int. 2012 Dec;110(11):1808-13 - PubMed
    1. Eur Urol. 2015 May;67(5):913-24 - PubMed
    1. Urol J. 2014 Mar 03;11(1):1222-7 - PubMed
    1. Surg Innov. 2015 Feb;22(1):15-9 - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources