|Authors||Hinshaw JL, Shadid AM, Nakada SY, Hedican SP, Winter TC, Lee FT|
|Journal||AJR Am J Roentgenol Volume: 191 Issue: 4 Pages: 1159-68|
|Publish Date||2008 Oct|
The goal of this study was to compare the outcome, complications, and charges of percutaneous renal cryoablation and laparoscopic cryoablation of solid renal masses.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.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.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.