Analysis of predictors of adherent perinephric fat and its impact on perioperative outcomes in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a retrospective case-control study

Predictive Value of the Mayo Adhesive Probability (MAP) Score in Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomies: A Systematic Review from the EAU Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT)

The Mayo Adhesive Probability (MAP) score is a radiographic scoring system that predicts the presence of adherent perinephric fat (APF) during partial nephrectomies (PNs). The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize the current literature on the application of the MAP score for predicting intraoperative difficulties related to APF and complications in laparoscopic PNs. Three databases, PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane, were screened, from inception to 29 October 2023, taking into consideration the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines. All the inclusion criteria were met by eight studies. The total operative time was around two hours in most studies, while the warm ischemia time was <30 min in all studies and <20 min in four studies. Positive surgical margins, conversion and transfusion rates ranged from 0% to 6.3%, from 0% to 5.0% and from 0.7% to 7.5%, respectively. Finally, the majority of the complications were classified as Grade I-II, according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification System. The MAP score is a useful tool for predicting not only the presence of APF during laparoscopic PNs but also various intraoperative and postoperative characteristics. It was found to be significantly associated with an increased operative time, estimated blood loss and intraoperative and postoperative complication rates.

Is the Mayo Adhesive Probability Score Predictive in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy?

Introduction: Mayo Adhesive Probability (MAP) score was developed as a means to predict the presence of adherent perinephric fat. Our aim was to determine the predictive value of the MAP score on surgical outcomes in patients undergoing standard adult percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data from 130 renal units that underwent PCNL between January 2022 and 2023. MAP scores 0-2 were classified as low, whereas MAP scores 3-5 were classified as high. The impact of the MAP score on perioperative and postoperative outcomes was studied. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 24.0 for Windows. Results: The median age of the patients at the time of surgery was 48 (21) years, with a female-to-male ratio of 1:1.82. The median MAP score was 2 (2), with 43.8% of patients falling into the high MAP score group. Advanced age, hypertension history, low estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) levels, and low renal parenchymal thickness were significantly higher in the high MAP score group (P = .010, P = .004, P = .001, and P = .005, respectively). Female patients had a significantly higher MAP score of 0 (P = .021). Operation time, postoperative hematocrit decrease, blood transfusion rate, postoperative fever rate, hospitalization, and stone-free rates were comparable between the low and high MAP score groups (P = .535, P = .209, P = .313, P = .289, P = .281, and P = .264, respectively). Gender and eGFR levels were shown to be significant predictors of a MAP ≥3 (P = .004 and P = .003, respectively). Conclusion: The present study showed that the MAP score groups had similar perioperative and postoperative results. Low eGFR levels and the male gender were associated with MAP score ≥3. To determine the predictive MAP score value for PCNL outcomes, more prospective studies are needed.

Transperitoneal Versus Retroperitoneal Robotic-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy in Patients with Obesity

Introduction: We aim to compare transperitoneal (TP) and retroperitoneal (RP) robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) in obese patients. Obesity and RP fat can complicate RPN, especially in the RP approach where working space is limited. Materials and Methods: Using a multi-institutional database, we analyzed 468 obese patients undergoing RPN for a renal mass (86 [18.38%] RP, 382 [81.62%] TP). Obesity was defined as body mass index ≥30 kg/m2*. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed adjusting for age, previous abdominal surgery, tumor size, R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score, tumor location, surgical date, and participating centers. Baseline characteristics and perioperative and postoperative data were compared. Results: In the propensity score-matched cohort, 79 (50%) TP patients were matched with 79 (50%) RP patients. The RP group had more posterior tumors (67 [84.81%], RP versus 23 [29.11%], TP; P < .001), while the other baseline characteristics were comparable. Warm ischemia time (interquartile range; 15 [10, 12], RP versus 14 [10, 17] minutes, TP; P = .216), operative time (129 [116, 165], RP versus 130 [95, 180] minutes, TP; P = .687), estimated blood loss (50 [50, 100], RP versus 75 [50, 150] mL, TP; P = .129), length of stay (1 [1, 1], RP versus 1 [1, 2] day, TP; P = .319), and major complication rate (1 [1.27%], RP versus 3 [3.80%], TP; P = .620) were similar. No significant difference was observed in positive surgical margin rate and delta estimated glomerular filtration at follow-up. Conclusion: TP and RP RPN yielded similar perioperative and postoperative outcomes in obese patients. Obesity should not be a factor in determining optimal approach for RPN.

The application of internal traction technique in retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for renal ventral tumors

Background

For patients with prior intra-abdominal surgery or multiple arteries, the retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (rRAPN) is a better choice. The renal ventral tumor poses an additional challenge due to poor tumor exposure. This study is determined to assess the feasibility of an internal traction technique (ITT) in rRAPN for the management of renal ventral tumors.

Methods

From November 2019 to March 2021, a total of 28 patients with renal ventral tumor underwent rRAPN. All patients had prior abdominal surgery or multiple arteries. The ITT group (20 patients), which improved the tumor exposure by traction of the kidney with suture, was compared with the traditional technique group (8 patients) in terms of warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss and postoperative hospital stay, retroperitoneal drainage, R.E.N.A.L. score, and serum creatinine. Differences were considered significant when P < 0.05.

Results

All rRAPN surgeries were successful without conversion to radical nephrectomy or open partial nephrectomy. The warm ischemia time was lower in the ITT group (17.10 min vs. 24.63 min; P < 0.05). Estimated blood loss in the traditional technique group was 324.88 ± 79.42 mL, and in the ITT group, it was 117.45±35.25 mL (P < 0.05). No significant differences with regard to postoperative hospital stay, retroperitoneal drainage, R.E.N.A.L. score, and serum creatinine were observed between both groups. Surgical margins were negative and no intraoperative complications occurred in all the patients. After 10 months of follow-up, no recurrence or metastasis occurred in all cases.

Conclusion

ITT is a feasible, safe, and valid procedure in rRAPN for renal ventral tumors. Application of ITT improved the exposure and reduces warm ischemic time in comparison with the conventional procedure.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-022-02684-1.