Comparison of Trifecta and Pentafecta Outcomes across 3 Surgical Modalities of Partial Nephrectomy (PN) – Open, Lap, and Robotic
Main Article Content
Keywords
Partial Nephrectomy, Trifecta, Pentafecta, Laparoscopic PN, Robotic PN
Abstract
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common solid tumor in the kidney (90%), accounting for about 3% of all cancers in adults. Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the surgical procedure primarily used for the treatment of localized kidney tumors. Two commonly used terms to describe the complexity and success of a partial nephrectomy procedure are “trifecta” and “pentafecta.” Trifecta is defined as Warm ischemia time (WIT) ≤ 25min or Cold ischemia time (CIT) ≤ 60min, Negative surgical margin (NSM), and no perioperative Clavien-Dindo complications (CDC) of Gr 3 or more [8], whereas pentafecta is defined as trifecta plus >90% preservation of e-Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and no increase in chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage at 12-months post-operative period. We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent partial nephrectomy at a single high-volume tertiary centre, from 2012 to 2020. We included patients who underwent partial nephrectomy by any of the three routes including open (OPN), laparoscopic (LPN), or robotic-assisted (RPN), and in which the follow-up data was available. We compared the trifecta and pentafecta outcomes across the three surgical modalities. We had a total of 183 patients in our study. Twenty-nine percent (53 patients) underwent open surgery, 12.6% (23 patients) underwent laparoscopic surgery and 58.5% (107) underwent robotic assisted surgery. The number of patients who fell under the low risk category in the RENAL scoring system were 70(38.3%), intermediate risk 79 (43.2%) and high risk 34 (18.6%). In the high risk RENAL score group, trifecta was achieved in 5 (50%) patients in OPN, 1(50%) in LPN and 7(31.8%) in RPN with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.581) whereas pentafecta was achieved in 3 (30%) patients in OPN, 1 (50%) in LPN and 7 (31.8%) in RPN with no statistically significant difference (0.855). In the overall cohort, mean WIT, mean hospital stay and mean EBL were higher in OPN as compared to LPN and RPN which was statistically significant (p < 0.001), whereas there was no statistical difference in mean operative time between the three modalities (p = 0.580). Renal tumors can be safely treated by RPN or LPN with lesser morbidity as compared to OPN. Trifecta and Pentafecta outcomes had no significant difference among OPN, LPN, and RPN. RPN and LPN may be considered feasible and safe surgical approaches ensuring good functional outcomes.
References
2. Zini L, Perrotte P, Capitanio U, Jeldres, Shariat SF, Antebi E, et al. Radical versus partial nephrectomy: Effect on overall and noncancer mortality. Cancer. 2009;115(7):1465–71. 10.1002/cncr.24035
3. Fergany AF, Hafez KS, Novick AC. Long-term results of nephron sparing surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: 10-year follow-up. J Urol. 2000;163(2):442–5. PMid: 10647650
4. Permpongkosol S, Bagga HS, Romero FR, Sroka M, Jarrett TW, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy for the treatment of pathological T1N0M0 renal cell carcinoma: A 5-year survival rate. J Urol. 2006;176(5):1984–8. 10.1016/j.juro.2006.07.033
5. Schiff JD, Palese M, Vaughan ED Jr, Sosa RE, Coll D, Del Pizzo JJ. Laparoscopic vs open partial nephrectomy in consecutive patients: The Cornell experience. BJU Int. 2005;96(6): 811–14. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05718.x
6. Wang AJ, Bhayani SB. Robotic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: Single-surgeon analysis of >100 consecutive procedures. Urology. 2009;73(2):306–10. 10.1016/j.urology.2008.09.049
7. Kural AR, Atug F, Tufek I, Akpinar H. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: Comparison of outcomes. J Endourol. 2009;23(9):1491–7. 10.1089/end.2009.0377
8. Hung AJ, Cai J, Simmons MN, Gill IS. “Trifecta” in partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2013;189(1):36–42. 10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.042
9. Kahn AE, Shumate AM, Ball CT, Thiel DD. Pre-operative factors that predict trifecta and pentafecta in robotic assisted partial nephrectomy. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(1):185–90. 10.1007/s11701-019-00958-7
10. Ghavimi S, Saarela O, Pouliot F, Rendon RA, Finelli A, Anil Kapoor, et al. Achieving the “trifecta” with open versus minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. World J Urol. 2021;39:1569–75. 10.1007/s00345-020-03349-y
11. Wang AJ, Bhayani SB. Robotic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: Single-surgeon analysis of >100 consecutive procedures. Urology. 2009;73(2):306–10. 10.1016/j.urology.2008.09.049
12. Kural AR, Atug F, Tufek I, Akpinar H. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: Comparison of outcomes. J Endourol. 2009;23(9):1491–7. 10.1089/end.2009.0377
13. Haber GP, White WM, Crouzet S, White MA, Forest S, Autorino R, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: Single-surgeon matched cohort study of 150 patients. Urology. 2010;76(3):754–8. 10.1016/j.urology.2010.03.058
14. Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Lane BR, Blute ML, Babineau D, Colombo JR Jr, et al. Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors. J Urol. 2007;178(1):41–6. 10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.038
15. Permpongkosol S, Bagga HS, Romero FR, Sroka M, Jarrett TW, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy for the treatment of pathological T1N0M0 renal cell carcinoma: A 5-year survival rate. J Urol. 2006;176(5):1984–8. 10.1016/j.juro.2006.07.033
16. Lucas SM, Matthew MJ, Erntsberger L, Sundaram CP. A comparison of robotic, laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy. JSLS. 2012;16:581–7. 10.4293/108680812X13462882737177