Laparoscopic Versus Percutaneous Cryoablation of Small Renal Mass: Systematic Review and Cumulative Analysis of Comparative Studies

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes of laparoscopic and percutaneous cryoablation for the treatment of small renal masses. A systematic review of the literature was performed through March 2016 using PubMed, Scopus, and Ovid databases. Article selection proceeded according to the search strategy on the basis of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria. Only studies that compared laparoscopic and percutaneous kidney cryoablation were included in the meta-analysis. Eleven retrospective comparative studies were identified and selected for the analysis, including 1725 cases: 804 (46.6%) percutaneous and 921 (53.4%) laparoscopic cryoablations. Percutaneous cryoablation was performed more frequently for posterior tumors (P < .001), whereas laparoscopy was more common for endophytic lesions (P = .01). The length of follow-up was longer for laparoscopy (P < .001). Percutaneous cryoablation was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay (P < .001). A lower likelihood of residual disease was recorded for laparoscopic (P = .003), whereas tumor recurrence rate favored percutaneous cryoablation (P = .02). The 2 procedures were similar for recurrence-free survival (P = .08), and overall survival (P = .51). No significant difference was found in postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (P = .78). Laparoscopic and percutaneous kidney cryoablation offer similar favorable oncological outcomes with minimal effect on renal function. The percutaneous access can offer shorter hospital stay and faster recovery, which can be appealing in an era of cost restraint.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles