HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hinshaw, J. L. Articles by Lee, F. T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hinshaw, J. L. Articles by Lee, F. T., Jr. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Comparison of Percutaneous and Laparoscopic Cryoablation for the Treatment of Solid Renal Masses

¹ Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, 600 Highland Ave., E3/311 CSC, Madison, WI 53792-3252.
² Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.

OBJECTIVE. The goal of this study was to compare the outcome, complications, and charges of percutaneous renal cryoablation and laparoscopic cryoablation of solid renal masses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. A total of 30 percutaneous renal cryoablations (mean tumor size, 2.1 cm) in 30 patients (mean age, 67.0 years) and 60 laparoscopic renal cryoablations (mean tumor size, 2.5 cm) in 46 patients (mean age, 67.4 years) were compared. The size of the tumor, procedural complications, hospital charges, length of hospital stay, and tumor follow-up parameters were recorded. Monitoring after ablation was performed every 3 months using contrast-enhanced MRI or CT.

RESULTS. Both percutaneous cryoablation and laparoscopic cryoablation of solid renal masses had a high technical success rate (30/30 [100%] and 59/60 [98.3%]). There was no significant difference in the rate of residual disease (3/30 [10%] and 4/60 [6.7%], p = 0.68), and the secondary effectiveness rate is 100% for both groups to date. One renal mass treated using laparoscopic cryoablation had a local recurrence, but none of the masses treated using percutaneous cryoablation had a recurrence. The disease-specific survival is 100% in both groups with no significant difference in the mean follow-up time (14.5 vs 14.6 months, p = 1.0) or major complication rate (0/30 [0%] vs 3/60 [5.0%], p = 0.55). For the treatment of solid renal masses, percutaneous cryoablation was associated with 40% lower hospital charges (mean, $14,175 vs $23,618, p < 0.00001) and a shorter hospital stay (mean ± SD, 1.1 ± 0.3 vs 2.4 ± 2.1 days; p < 0.0001) than laparoscopic cryoablation.

CONCLUSION. Although certain tumors require laparoscopic intervention because of the location or size of the tumor, percutaneous renal cryoablation is safe and effective and is associated with lower charges when used for the treatment of small renal tumors.

Keywords: ablation • cryoablation • kidney disease • oncologic imaging • renal cell carcinoma • renal masses

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?