Management of renal masses with laparoscopic-guided radiofrequency ablation versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy

Laparoscopic-guided radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) has been introduced as a minimally invasive nephron-sparing management option for renal tumors. Many patients who desire treatment present with multiple comorbidities, which poses a therapeutic challenge. Our purpose is to determine if multipass LRFA is comparable, in terms of surgical risk and immediate postoperative outcomes, to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN).

A retrospective study identified 36 and 33 patients who underwent LRFA and LPN, respectively. Perioperative demographic data, tumor characteristics, and follow-up data were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using the Student t test and chi-square analysis.

Age, American Society of Anesthesiology score, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were significantly higher in the LRFA group than the LPN group (P < 0.001). Average tumor size was 2.8 cm and 3.1 cm for the LRFA and LPN groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in change between the preoperative and postoperative creatinine/glomerular filtration rate values or perioperative complication rates for the groups. Estimated blood loss and length of stay were significantly lower for the LRFA group than the LPN group (P < 0.05). Follow-up ranged 6 to 23 months and 6 to 58 months for the LRFA and the LPN groups, respectively. There has been no evidence of tumor recurrence in the follow-up period.

We present our initial report comparing patients undergoing LRFA v LPN for the management of renal tumors. Our preliminary results with our experience with multipass laparoscopic-guided RFA demonstrate that this technique can be safely used in an elderly, higher risk population. Long-term follow-up is needed to determine oncologic efficacy.