The evolving landscape of renal surgery for complex renal masses (CRM): implications for oncologic and functional outcomes
Savio Domenico Pandolfo , Achille Aveta , Sisto Perdonà , Gianluca Spena , Alessandro Izzo , Antonio Tufano , Zhenjie Wu , Clara Cerrato , Ferdinando Fusco , Celeste Manfredi , Davide Arcaniolo , Pierluigi Russo , Lorenzo Romano , Matteo Ferro , Rocco Bernardo , Giuseppe Lucarelli , Francesco Lasorsa , Salvatore Siracusano , Simone Cilio , Carlo Giulioni , Angelo Cafarelli , Fabio Crocerossa , Paolo Conforti
Mini-invasive Surgery ›› 2025, Vol. 9 ›› Issue (1) : 1
The evolving landscape of renal surgery for complex renal masses (CRM): implications for oncologic and functional outcomes
Partial nephrectomy (PN) has become the standard of treatment for most T1 renal masses and is suitable for selected T2 renal cortical masses. In this setting, the management of complex renal masses (CRM) requires a thorough understanding of the potential risks and benefits of both PN and radical nephrectomy (RN). Indeed, thanks to the advent of robotic surgery, indications of PN have expanded to include larger tumors and CRM, despite the associated surgical complexity and oncologic risks. The decision-making process for CRM treatment with PN or RN is complex. Thus, the current review aims to explore the decision-making essentials for patients with CRM, identify research gaps, and address the clinical challenge of determining the most suitable surgical approach. Current evidence suggests that while PN offers a clear advantage in renal tissue preservation, it may carry higher perioperative risks compared to RN. However, these risks should be balanced with the long-term benefits of renal function preservation. In conclusion, further high-quality, prospective studies are needed to better define the comparative effectiveness of PN vs. RN to guide clinical decision-making for CRM.
Partial nephrectomy / radical nephrectomy / complex renal masses / renal preservation surgery / renal cell carcinoma / RCC
| [1] |
|
| [2] |
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
Rakul SA, Pozdnyakov KV, Eloev RA. [Nephron sparing surgery in complex kidney tumors].Urologiia2020;6:99-105 |
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
Campi R, Di Maida F, Lane BR, et al; Members of the SIB International Consortium. Impact of surgical approach and resection technique on the risk of Trifecta failure after partial nephrectomy for highly complex renal masses. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2022;48:687-93. |
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
|
| [40] |
|
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
|
| [43] |
|
| [44] |
|
| [45] |
|
| [46] |
Antonelli A, Mari A, Longo N, et al; Collaborators. Role of clinical and surgical factors for the prediction of immediate, early and late functional results, and its relationship with cardiovascular outcome after partial nephrectomy: results from the prospective multicenter RECORd 1 project. J Urol. 2018;199:927-32. |
| [47] |
|
| [48] |
|
| [49] |
|
| [50] |
|
| [51] |
|
| [52] |
|
| [53] |
|
| [54] |
|
| [55] |
|
| [56] |
|
| [57] |
|
| [58] |
|
| [59] |
|
| [60] |
|
| [61] |
|
| [62] |
|
| [63] |
|
| [64] |
|
| [65] |
|
| [66] |
|
| [67] |
|
| [68] |
|
| [69] |
|
| [70] |
|
| [71] |
|
| [72] |
|
| [73] |
|
| [74] |
|
| [75] |
|
| [76] |
|
| [77] |
|
| [78] |
|
| [79] |
|
| [80] |
|
| [81] |
|
| [82] |
|
| [83] |
|
| [84] |
|
| [85] |
|
| [86] |
|
| [87] |
Campi R, Grosso AA, Lane BR, et al; SIB International Consortium. Impact of Trifecta definition on rates and predictors of “successful” robotic partial nephrectomy for localized renal masses: results from the surface-intermediate-base margin score international consortium. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2022;74:186-93. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |