METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of three GWAS comprising 684 patients with type 2 diabetes and 955 controls of Southern Han Chinese descent. We followed up the top signals in two independent Southern Han Chinese cohorts (totalling 10,383 cases and 6,974 controls), and performed in silico replication in multiple populations.
RESULTS: We identified CDKN2A/B and four novel type 2 diabetes association signals with p
METHODS: By using preoperative computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and 3-dimensional image reconstruction, 5 critical components were assessed: the ratio of the sinus area occupied by the tumor in relation to the whole sinus area (R), the compression of the renal segmental vessels or collection system by the tumor (O), the anteroposterior relation of the tumor relative to the segmental vessels or collection system (A), the tumor diameter (D), and whether the tumor affects a solitary kidney (S) ("ROADS"). The ROADS score, indicating low, moderate, or high surgical complexity, was then used to guide surgical strategy planning, including cooling techniques, surgical approaches, and parenchyma incision techniques. A cohort of 134 patients with renal sinus tumors was treated based on their ROADS score and was retrospectively analyzed.
RESULTS: The authors successfully performed 113 nephron-sparing surgeries and 21 radical nephrectomies with a complication rate of 7.9%. During follow-up, 3 cases were classified according to surgical margin status because they lacked an intact tumor capsule. There was only 1 case of local recurrence, and there were no cases of metastasis. A high ROADS score was correlated with greater operative complexity, such as longer operation and ischemia times and higher estimated blood loss and complication rates. However, renal function and short-term oncologic outcomes were not related to the score.
CONCLUSIONS: The ROADS scoring system provides a standardized, quantitative, 3-dimensional anatomic classification to guide surgical strategy in renal sinus tumors.
Methods: Between August 2015 to March 2019, 96 patients in our hospital underwent RALP, with 32 patients as secondary intervention for recurrent UPJO. We compared the perioperative parameters of RALP for both primary UPJO and recurrent UPJO. Patient demographics, perioperative parameters, postoperative outcomes and complications from both groups were analyzed and compared.
Results: RALP was successfully performed for all cases in both groups. The median operating time was longer for secondary RALP than for primary RALP [125 (108.5-155) vs. 151 (120-190) minutes, P=0.004]. There were no conversions to open surgery or significant perioperative complications. No difference in blood loss, transfusion rate and perioperative complication rates was noted between the two groups. The success rates were 98.44% (63/64) and 96.88% (31/32) at a median follow up of 32 and 20 months (P=0.001) for the primary and secondary groups, respectively.
Conclusions: Secondary RALP is associated with significantly longer operative time as compared to primary RALP, especially during the exposure of the UPJO, however it is a safe surgical modality for recurrent UPJO with durable outcome. RALP should be an alternative treatment modality for recurrent UPJO whenever the facility and expert are available.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a decision-making program and analyze multi-institutional outcomes of RAC-IVCT versus RAT-IVCT.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Ninety patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with level II IVCT were included from eight Chinese urological centers, and underwent RAC-IVCT (30 patients) or RAT-IVCT (60 patients) from June 2013 to January 2019.
SURGICAL PROCEDURE: The surgical strategy was based on IVCT imaging characteristics. RAT-IVCT was performed with standardized cavotomy, thrombectomy, and IVC reconstruction. RAC-IVCT was mainly performed in patients with extensive IVC wall invasion when the collateral blood vessels were well-established. For right-sided RCC, the IVC from the infrarenal vein to the infrahepatic veins was stapled. For left-sided RCC, the IVC from the suprarenal vein to the infrahepatic veins was removed and caudal IVC reconstruction was performed to ensure the right renal vein returned through the IVC collaterals.
MEASUREMENTS: Clinicopathological, operative, and survival outcomes were collected and analyzed.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: All procedures were successfully performed without open conversion. The median operation time (268 vs 190 min) and estimated blood loss (1500 vs 400 ml) were significantly greater for RAC-IVCT versus RAT-IVCT (both p < 0.001). IVC invasion was a risk factor for progression-free and overall survival at midterm follow-up. Large-volume and long-term follow-up studies are needed.
CONCLUSIONS: RAC-IVCT or RAT-IVCT represents an alternative minimally invasive approach for selected RCC patients with level II IVCT. Selection of RAC-IVCT or RAT-IVCT is mainly based on preoperative IVCT imaging characteristics, including the presence of IVC wall invasion, the affected kidney, and establishment of the collateral circulation.
PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study we found that robotic surgeries for level II inferior vena cava thrombus were feasible and safe. Preoperative imaging played an important role in establishing an appropriate surgical plan.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients with stage I NSGCTs who underwent robotic or laparoscopic RPLND between 2008 and 2017. Perioperative data and oncologic outcomes were reviewed and compared between the two groups. Progression-free survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and compared between two groups.
RESULTS: A total of 31 and 28 patients underwent R-RPLND and L-RPLND respectively. The preoperative characteristics of the patients were comparable in the two groups. Patients in R-RPLND group had significantly shorter median operative time (140 vs. 175 minutes, P < .001), a shorter median duration to surgical drain removal (2 vs. 4 days, P = .002) and a shorter median postoperative hospital stay (5 vs. 6 days, P = .001). There were no statistical differences in intra- and post-operative complication rate between the groups and the oncologic outcomes were similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSION: In expert hands, R-RPLND and L-RPLND were comparable in oncological parameter and morbidity rate; R-RPLND showed superiority in operation duration, median days to surgical drain removal and postoperative hospital stay for stage I NSGCTs. Multicenter and randomized studies with good power of study and sufficient follow-up duration are required to validate our result.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight patients with level IV inferior vena cava thrombi not extending into the atrium underwent transabdominal-transdiaphragmatic robot-assisted inferior vena cava thrombectomy obviating cardiopulmonary bypass/deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (cardiopulmonary bypass-free group) by an expert team comprising urological, hepatobiliary, and cardiovascular surgeons. The central diaphragm tendon and pericardium were transabdominally dissected until the intrapericardial inferior vena cava were exposed and looped proximal to the cranial end of the thrombi under intraoperative ultrasound guidance. As controls, 14 patients who underwent robot-assisted inferior vena cava thrombectomy with cardiopulmonary bypass (cardiopulmonary bypass group) and 25 patients who underwent open thrombectomy with cardiopulmonary bypass/deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (cardiopulmonary bypass/deep hypothermic circulatory arrest group) were included. Clinicopathological, operative, and survival outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.
RESULTS: Eight robot-assisted inferior vena cava thrombectomies were successfully performed without cardiopulmonary bypass, with 1 open conversion. The median operation time and first porta hepatis occlusion time were shorter, and estimated blood loss was lower in the cardiopulmonary bypass-free group as compared to the cardiopulmonary bypass group (540 vs 586.5 minutes, 16.5 vs 38.5. minutes, and 2,050 vs 3,500 mL, respectively). Severe complications (level IV-V) were also lower in the cardiopulmonary bypass-free group than in cardiopulmonary bypass and cardiopulmonary bypass/deep hypothermic circulatory arrest groups (25% vs 50% vs 40%). Oncologic outcomes were comparable among the 3 groups in short-term follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Pure transabdominal-transdiaphragmatic robot-assisted inferior vena cava thrombectomy without cardiopulmonary bypass/deep hypothermic circulatory arrest represents as an alternative minimally invasive approach for selected level IV inferior vena cava thrombi.