File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: How can the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scoring system aid management of a solid renal mass?

TitleHow can the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scoring system aid management of a solid renal mass?
Authors
Issue Date2014
PublisherHong Kong Academy of Medicine Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hkmj.org.hk
Citation
Hong Kong Medical Journal, 2014, v. 20 n. 1, p. 37-44 How to Cite?
AbstractOBJECTIVES. To investigate use of the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score in relation to the choice of treatment and postoperative complications for renal masses. DESIGN. Case series. SETTING. A tertiary referral hospital in Hong Kong. PATIENTS. Data of patients undergoing nephrectomy were collected retrospectively from a clinical database and analysed. A R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score was allocated to each renal tumour by a blinded qualified radiologist, utilising computerised imaging systems. Patient demographics, choice of surgery (radical vs partial), and approaches (open vs minimally invasive) were analysed with respect to their R.E.N.A.L. score. RESULTS. In all, 74 patients were included during the study period, of which 38 underwent partial nephrectomy and 36 underwent radical nephrectomy. No differences between the groups were found with respect to patient demographics. There were significant differences between the partial and radical nephrectomy groups in terms of their mean nephrometry score (6.9 vs 9.3, P<0.001). The mean nephrometry sum was also significantly different in the open approach versus the minimally invasive approach in patients having partial nephrectomy (7.8 vs 6.0, P=0.001). There was no difference in the postoperative 90-day morbidity and mortality in the partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy groups. CONCLUSIONS. The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score of a renal mass correlated significantly with our choice of surgery (partial vs radical) and our approach to surgery (open vs minimally invasive surgery), particularly in the partial nephrectomy group. It does not, however, correlate with postoperative complications. The nephrometry score provides a useful tool for objectively describing renal mass characteristics and enhancing better communication for the operative planning directed at renal masses.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/193921
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 0.887
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.279

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWong, MHen_US
dc.contributor.authorCho, KYen_US
dc.contributor.authorHo, KLen_US
dc.contributor.authorWong, KWen_US
dc.contributor.authorLai, CTen_US
dc.contributor.authorMan, CMen_US
dc.contributor.authorYiu, MKen_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-01-28T06:33:27Z-
dc.date.available2014-01-28T06:33:27Z-
dc.date.issued2014en_US
dc.identifier.citationHong Kong Medical Journal, 2014, v. 20 n. 1, p. 37-44en_US
dc.identifier.issn1024-2708-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/193921-
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES. To investigate use of the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score in relation to the choice of treatment and postoperative complications for renal masses. DESIGN. Case series. SETTING. A tertiary referral hospital in Hong Kong. PATIENTS. Data of patients undergoing nephrectomy were collected retrospectively from a clinical database and analysed. A R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score was allocated to each renal tumour by a blinded qualified radiologist, utilising computerised imaging systems. Patient demographics, choice of surgery (radical vs partial), and approaches (open vs minimally invasive) were analysed with respect to their R.E.N.A.L. score. RESULTS. In all, 74 patients were included during the study period, of which 38 underwent partial nephrectomy and 36 underwent radical nephrectomy. No differences between the groups were found with respect to patient demographics. There were significant differences between the partial and radical nephrectomy groups in terms of their mean nephrometry score (6.9 vs 9.3, P<0.001). The mean nephrometry sum was also significantly different in the open approach versus the minimally invasive approach in patients having partial nephrectomy (7.8 vs 6.0, P=0.001). There was no difference in the postoperative 90-day morbidity and mortality in the partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy groups. CONCLUSIONS. The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score of a renal mass correlated significantly with our choice of surgery (partial vs radical) and our approach to surgery (open vs minimally invasive surgery), particularly in the partial nephrectomy group. It does not, however, correlate with postoperative complications. The nephrometry score provides a useful tool for objectively describing renal mass characteristics and enhancing better communication for the operative planning directed at renal masses.-
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherHong Kong Academy of Medicine Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hkmj.org.hk-
dc.relation.ispartofHong Kong Medical Journalen_US
dc.rightsHong Kong Medical Journal. Copyright © Hong Kong Academy of Medicine Press.-
dc.rightsCreative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License-
dc.titleHow can the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scoring system aid management of a solid renal mass?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailWong, MH: edwong56@gmail.comen_US
dc.identifier.emailHo, KL: hkl218@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.emailYiu, MK: pmkyiu@hku.hk-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.12809/hkmj133920en_US
dc.identifier.pmid23878200-
dc.identifier.hkuros227492en_US
dc.identifier.volume20en_US
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.identifier.spage37-
dc.identifier.epage44-
dc.publisher.placeHong Kong-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats