Clinical efficacy of bipolar radiofrequency ablation of small renal masses

Local anesthesia for percutaneous US/CT-guided bipolar radiofrequency ablation of small renal masses: A safe and feasible alternative

PURPOSE

This study is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of local anesthesia (LA) for percutaneous ultrasound/computed tomography (US/CT)-guided bipolar radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for small renal masses (SRMs) by comparing the LA with general anesthesia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review was carried out between January 2018 to June 2020, 102 patients with SRMs were treated with US/CT-guided bipolar RFA. General anesthesia (GA) was performed in 42 and LA was performed in 60 patients. Demographics, tumor characteristics, peri-procedural data, pathologic and follow-up outcomes were analyzed. The factors associated with pain were also identified.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in demographics and tumor characteristics between the LA and GA group. A statistically significant difference was observed in terms of procedural time (P = 0.010) and hospital stays (P < 0.001). The maximum perceived pain in LA group comprised 60.0% (36 of 60) mild, 40.0% (24 of 60) moderate. The anxiety in LA group comprised 65.0% (39 of 60) mild, 33.3% (20 of 60) moderate, 1.7% (1 of 60) severe. On multivariate analysis, tumor diameter was a significant predictor for pain in RFA procedure (OR 1.560, 95% CI 1.233-1.974, P < 0.001). All patients were followed up for a median (range) of 12 (2-24) months. Local recurrence occurred in 8.3% (5 of 60) of the LA group and in 7.1% (3 of 42) in GA group (P = 1.000).

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous bipolar RFA of SRMs using CT and ultrasound guidance under LA can be an effective and tolerable method for patients who are unfit for surgery and provide satisfactory oncologic control.

Outcome selection, measurement and reporting for new surgical procedures and devices: a systematic review of IDEAL/IDEAL-D studies to inform development of a core outcome set

BACKGROUND

Outcome selection, measurement and reporting for the evaluation of new surgical procedures and devices is inconsistent and lacks standardization. A core outcome set may promote the safe and transparent evaluation of surgical innovations. This systematic review examined outcome selection, measurement and reporting in studies conducted within the IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term monitoring) framework to examine current practice and inform the development of a core outcome set for early-phase studies of surgical procedures/devices.

METHODS

Web of Science and Scopus citation searches were performed to identify author-reported IDEAL/IDEAL-D studies for any surgical procedure/device. Outcomes were extracted verbatim, including contextual information regarding outcome selection and measurement. Outcomes were categorized to inform a conceptual framework of outcome domains relevant to evaluating innovation.

RESULTS

Some 48 studies were identified. Outcome selection, measurement and reporting varied widely across studies in different IDEAL stages. From 1737 outcomes extracted, 22 domains specific to evaluating innovation were conceptualized under seven broad categories: procedure completion success/failure; modifications; unanticipated events; surgeons' experiences; patients' experiences; resource use specific to the innovative procedure/device; and other innovation-specific outcomes. Most innovation-specific outcomes were measured and reported in only a small number of studies.

CONCLUSION

This review highlighted the need for guidance and standardization in outcome selection and reporting in the evaluation of new surgical procedures/devices. Novel outcome domains specific to innovation have been identified to establish a core outcome set for future evaluations of surgical innovations.

Use of the IDEAL framework in the urological literature: where are we in 2018?

OBJECTIVES

To assess uptake and application of the IDEAL principles in original surgical procedure- or device-related clinical research studies, as well as its reported relevance as characterized by secondary publications, editorials and reviews.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study) is a framework that provides stage-specific guidance for surgical innovation and represented a major advance towards raising evidential standards. We performed a comprehensive literature search of all urology-related publications citing one or more of seven key publications on IDEAL in The Lancet and BMJ using multiple databases up to 31 December 2017.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 150 urology-related manuscripts citing IDEAL, of which 83 (55.3%) were original research and 67 (44.7%) were secondary publications. Among the original research articles, 40 (48.2%) did not explicitly apply IDEAL principles or were not surgical innovation studies. The IDEAL phases of the 43 (51.8%) remaining original research studies were IDEAL, in nine (20.9%), 27 (62.8%), four (9.3%), 0 (0%), and three publications (7.0%), respectively. Across IDEAL stages, 30 (75.0%) studies were prospective, 29 (85.3%) reported ethical oversight, and 39 (90.7%) captured treatment-related harms. None of the studies collected information on physician experience.

CONCLUSIONS

The IDEAL framework has found widespread adoption in the urology literature as witnessed by a large number of original manuscripts and secondary publications citing IDEAL; however, its application is largely limited to the early stages of surgical innovation, frequently with inappropriate and incomplete implementation. Further efforts are needed to guide investigators in the optimal use of the IDEAL framework as it relates to surgical innovation in urology.