Authors
Filimonov V.B.2, Vasin R.V.2, Kaprin A.D.1, Kostin A.A.1, Sobennikov I.S.2, Petryaev A.V.3
1 RUDN university, Moscow
2 Ryazan State Medical University named after academician I.P. Pavlov, Head of Department of Urology and Nephrology, Ryazan
3 Tula regional clinical hospital, Tula
Abstract
Aim. Improving the quality of kidney resection during neoplasms using the original method of suturing the renal parenchyma.
Materials and methods. The study included 90 patients with a diagnosis of kidney tumor. Men 57, women 33. Patients are divided (randomization) into the II observation group. Group I included 45 patients. The average age of patients is 64.7±3.14 years. The average tumor size in the largest dimension was 3.8±0.81 cm. Patients of group I had a kidney resection according to the classical technique. Group II included 45 patients. The average age of patients is 65.8±2.92 years. The average tumor size in the largest dimension was 3.92±0.76 cm. Patients of group II had a kidney resection according to the developed technique using a mesh implant. In the postoperative period, the following criteria were evaluated: average time of surgery, average time of organ ischemia when performing a kidney resection, average blood loss; level of azotemia (creatinine, urea): before surgery, immediately after surgery, 1.5 months after surgery. Clavien-Dindo postoperative complications were assessed.
Results. According to the time of the operation, the time of organ ischemia and postoperative blood loss, the considered methods of kidney resection showed comparable results. In patients of group II, changes in the level of azotemia are less pronounced. When assessing the number of complications, it was revealed that in patients of group II in the postoperative period, we registered 1.75 times less postoperative complications.
Conclusion. Kidney resection using a mesh implant is a highly effective way to perform kidney resection, providing high-quality hemostasis with less trauma to a healthy renal parenchyma.
Keywords: kidney tumor, kidney resection, prolene mesh.
References
1. Alekseev BYa, Anzhiganova YuV, Lykov AV, et al.. Features of the diagnosis and treatment of kidney cancer in Russia: preliminary results of a multicenter collaborative study. OU. 2012;(3). (In Russ.).
2. Matveev VB, Markova AS. Kidney cancer: what’s new in 2018. Oncourology 2018; 14 (4): 48-52. (In Russ.).
3. Kaprin AD. The status of cancer care for the population of Russia in 2017. M .: MNII them. P.A. Herzen - a branch of the Federal State Budgetary Institution Scientific Research Center for Radiology of the Ministry of Health of Russia, 2018.236 p. (In Russ.).
4. Keane T, Gillatt D, Evans CP, et al. Current and future trends in treatment of renal cancer. Eur Urol. 2007;6: 374−84.
5. Ristau BT, Handorf EA, Cahn DB. et al. Partial nephrectomy is not associated with an overall survival advantage over radical nephrectomy in elderly patients with stage Ib II renal masses: an analysis of the national cancer data base. Cancer 2018; 124(19): 3839-48.
6. Siegel RI, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018 CA cancer J Clin 2018;68(1): 7-30.
