Safety and Postoperative Outcomes of Regional versus Global Ischemia for Partial Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Publisher： Karger

E-ISSN： 1423-0399|94|4|428-435

ISSN： 0042-1138

Source： Urologia Internationalis, Vol.94, Iss.4, 2014-11, pp. : 428-435

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Abstract

Objective: To analyze current evidence comparing the safety and outcomes of regional and global ischemia for partial nephrectomy (PN). Materials and Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed and Web of Science databases was conducted in May 2014 to identify studies comparing the safety and outcomes of regional and global ischemia for PN. A systematic review and meta-analysis was also performed. Results: Six retrospective observational studies were selected for the analysis, including 363 patients who underwent PN (162 regional ischemia and 201 global ischemia cases). Operation times were not statistically different [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 20.35 min, 95% CI: -0.28-40.97, p = 0.05], but estimated blood loss was significantly higher in the regional ischemia group (WMD = 52.04 ml, 95% CI: 14.30-89.78, p = 0.007) than in the global ischemia group. Complication rates [odds ratio (OR) = 1.16; 95% CI: 0.63-2.15, p = 0.63] and blood transfusion rates (OR = 1.85; 95% CI: 0.86-4.01, p = 0.12) of the two groups were not significantly different. The regional ischemia group showed better postoperative renal function (WMD = 4.23 ml/min, 95% CI: 2.61-5.85, p < 0.00001) than the global ischemia group, and all cases in the regional ischemia group showed negative margins. Conclusions: Regional ischemia is as safe to perform as global ischemia, and the former leads to better postoperative renal functions than the latter. These findings support the application of regional ischemia for PN.