Home > Journals > Minerva Urology and Nephrology > Past Issues > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 October;71(5) > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 October;71(5):435-44



To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as


REVIEW   Freefree

Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 October;71(5):435-44

DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03470-2


language: English

Partial nephrectomy versus radical nephrectomy for cT2 or greater renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Jingdong LI, Yanping ZHANG, Zhihai TENG, Zhenwei HAN

Department of Urology, the Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China

INTRODUCTION: This manuscript is a review of current studies and conducts a meta-analysis on the topic of partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) in larger renal tumors (cT2 and greater).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic research of PubMed, Ovid, Scopus (up to January 2019), and reference lists was performed to identify eligible comparative studies. All studies comparing PN with RN for cT2 or greater renal tumors were included. The quality of the included trials was assessed and the data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Statistical analyses were performed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 software.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, 11 retrospective cohort studies including 19,281 patients (PN 1,146; RN 18,135) were included in the analysis. The tumor size was likely smaller in PN compared with RN (WMD -0.85 cm; P=0.05). Lower estimated blood loss (EBL) was found for RN (WMD 100.44 mL; P<0.001). The length of hospital stay was longer for PN (WMD 1.07 days; P=0.002). There was a higher likelihood of postoperative complications for PN (RR 1.96; P<0.001). PN was associated with better postoperative renal function (eGFR; WMD 7.31 mL/min/1.73 m2; P<0.001), and lower decline in eGFR (WMD -9.00 mL/min/1.73 m2; P<0.001). The positive margins were more common in PN (RR 4.19; P=0.003). The PN group might be non-inferior to RN for tumor recurrence (RR 0.57; P<0.001), tumor-specific mortality (RR 0.58; P=0.007), and all-cause mortality (RR 0.78; P=0.004).
CONCLUSIONS: PN shows a feasible, safe and viable treatment option for larger renal tumors because it provides better preservation of kidney function and non-inferior survival. However, PN in patients with stage T2 or greater renal masses should be more selective, because of higher complications.

KEY WORDS: Kidney neoplasms; Nephrectomy; Review

top of page