OBJECTIVES To evaluate, in a pilot prospective randomized trial, the safety, effectiveness and radiological recurrence of retroperitoneal renal cyst decortication compared with retroperitoneal decortication with wadding using perirenal pedicled fat tissue. PATIENTS AND METHODS From March 2004 to December 2007, 40 patients with simple renal cysts were enrolled and randomized; 22 (group A) had a simple retroperitoneal decortication (SRD) and 18 (group B) a decortication with wadding of the cyst using perirenal fat tissue (RDCW). The following variables were recorded: age, gender, side, size on ultrasonography/computed tomography (CT), location, operative duration, blood loss, complications, pathology, presence or absence of flank pain, hypertension, urinary tract compression or urinary infection. The primary endpoint of this trial was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of both treatments. Secondary endpoints were safety and pain, hypertension and the resolution of urinary tract obstruction. RESULTS In all, 40 cysts were treated; there were no bilateral cysts. The mean (sd) size on CT was 11.9 (1.84) cm in group A and 12.8 (1.25) cm in group B (P = 0.1). All the procedures were completed laparoscopically and no conversion was necessary. There were no intraoperative complications. The mean (range) hospital stay was 3.4 (3-6) days. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for all variables assessed. There was a radiological recurrence in three patients (14%) in group A, but none in group B (all successful). CONCLUSION To be completely successful, with maximum safety and to prevent recurrences in the treatment of renal cysts, RCDW is recommended when a retroperitoneal approach is chosen, especially if the cyst is located anteriorly. When symptom relief is considered, RCDW duplicates the results obtained with SRD.
Retroperitoneal decortication of simple renal cysts vs decortication with wadding using perirenal fat tissue: results of a prospective randomized trial
PORPIGLIA, Francesco;Fiori C;Di Stasio A;VACCINO, DAVIDE;Bertolo R;Roberto Mario
2009-01-01
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate, in a pilot prospective randomized trial, the safety, effectiveness and radiological recurrence of retroperitoneal renal cyst decortication compared with retroperitoneal decortication with wadding using perirenal pedicled fat tissue. PATIENTS AND METHODS From March 2004 to December 2007, 40 patients with simple renal cysts were enrolled and randomized; 22 (group A) had a simple retroperitoneal decortication (SRD) and 18 (group B) a decortication with wadding of the cyst using perirenal fat tissue (RDCW). The following variables were recorded: age, gender, side, size on ultrasonography/computed tomography (CT), location, operative duration, blood loss, complications, pathology, presence or absence of flank pain, hypertension, urinary tract compression or urinary infection. The primary endpoint of this trial was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of both treatments. Secondary endpoints were safety and pain, hypertension and the resolution of urinary tract obstruction. RESULTS In all, 40 cysts were treated; there were no bilateral cysts. The mean (sd) size on CT was 11.9 (1.84) cm in group A and 12.8 (1.25) cm in group B (P = 0.1). All the procedures were completed laparoscopically and no conversion was necessary. There were no intraoperative complications. The mean (range) hospital stay was 3.4 (3-6) days. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for all variables assessed. There was a radiological recurrence in three patients (14%) in group A, but none in group B (all successful). CONCLUSION To be completely successful, with maximum safety and to prevent recurrences in the treatment of renal cysts, RCDW is recommended when a retroperitoneal approach is chosen, especially if the cyst is located anteriorly. When symptom relief is considered, RCDW duplicates the results obtained with SRD.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
