Comparison of Percutaneous and Laparoscopic Cryoablation for the Treatment of Solid Renal Masses  

Oleh:

Hinshaw, J. Louis ; Shadid, Anthony M. ; Nakada, Stephen Y. ; Hedican, Sean P.

Jenis: Article from Journal - ilmiah internasional
Dalam koleksi: American Journal of Roentgenology vol. 191 no. 04 (Oct. 2008), page 1159-1168 .
Topik: INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY; Vascular; ablation; cryoablation; kidney disease; oncologic imaging; renal cell carcinoma; renal masses

Ketersediaan

Perpustakaan FK Nomor Panggil: A13.K Non-tandon: 1 (dapat dipinjam: 0) Tandon: tidak ada

Lihat Detail Induk

Isi artikel

OBJECTIVE. The goal of this study was to compare the outcome, complications, and charges of percutaneous renal cryoablation and laparoscopic cryoablation of solid renal masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A total of 30 percutaneous renal cryoablations (mean tumor size, 2.1 cm) in 30 patients (mean age, 67.0 years) and 60 laparoscopic renal cryoablations (mean tumor size, 2.5 cm) in 46 patients (mean age, 67.4 years) were compared. The size of the tumor, procedural complications, hospital charges, length of hospital stay, and tumor follow-up parameters were recorded. Monitoring after ablation was performed every 3 months using contrast-enhanced MRI or CT. RESULTS. Both percutaneous cryoablation and laparoscopic cryoablation of solid renal masses had a high technical success rate (30/30 [100%] and 59/60 [98.3%]). There was no significant difference in the rate of residual disease (3/30 [10%] and 4/60 [6.7%], p = 0.68), and the secondary effectiveness rate is 100% for both groups to date. One renal mass treated using laparoscopic cryoablation had a local recurrence, but none of the masses treated using percutaneous cryoablation had a recurrence. The disease-specific survival is 100% in both groups with no significant difference in the mean follow-up time (14.5 vs 14.6 months, p = 1.0) or major complication rate (0/30 [0%] vs 3/60 [5.0%], p = 0.55). For the treatment of solid renal masses, percutaneous cryoablation was associated with 40% lower hospital charges (mean, $14,175 vs $23,618, p < 0.00001) and a shorter hospital stay (mean ± SD, 1.1 ± 0.3 vs 2.4 ± 2.1 days; p < 0.0001) than laparoscopic cryoablation. CONCLUSION. Although certain tumors require laparoscopic intervention because of the location or size of the tumor, percutaneous renal cryoablation is safe and effective and is associated with lower charges when used for the treatment of small renal tumors.

Opini Anda

Klik untuk menuliskan opini Anda tentang koleksi ini!

Kembali