Minimally invasive vs open nephrectomy in the modern era: does approach matter?
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate if the widespread adoption of a minimally invasive approach to radical nephrectomy has affected short- and long-term patient outcomes in the modern era. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent radical nephrectomy from 2001 to 2012 was conducted using the US National Cancer Institute Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program and Medicare insurance program database. Patients who underwent open surgery were compared to those who underwent minimally invasive surgery using propensity score matching. RESULTS: 10,739 (85.9%) underwent open surgery and 1776 (14.1%) underwent minimally invasive surgery. Minimally invasive surgery increased from 18.4% from 2001-2004 to 43.5% from 2009 to 2012. After median follow-up of 57.1 months, minimally invasive radical nephrectomy conferred long-term oncologic efficacy in terms of overall (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.75-0.95) survival and cancer-specific (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.54-0.86) survival compared to open radical nephrectomy. Minimally invasive surgery was associated with lower risk of inpatient death [risk ratio (RR) 0.45 with 95% CI: (0.20-0.99), p = 0.04], deep vein thrombosis [RR: 0.35 (0.18-0.69), p = 0.002], respiratory complications [RR: 0.73 (0.60-0.89), p = 0.001], infectious complications [RR: 0.35 (0.14-0.90), p = 0.02], acute kidney injury [RR: 0.66 (0.52-0.84), p < 0.001], sepsis [RR: 0.55 (0.31-0.98), p = 0.04], prolonged length of stay (18.6 vs 30.0%, p < 0.001), and ICU admission (19.7 vs 26.3%, p < 0.001). Costs were similar between the two approaches (30-day costs $15,882 vs $15,564; p = 0.70). CONCLUSION: After widespread adoption of minimally invasive approaches to radical nephrectomy across the United States, oncologic standards remain preserved with improved perioperative outcomes at no additional cost burden.
