Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Minimal-invasive vs. offen-chirurgische Verfahren in der Therapie des Nierenkarzinoms

Minimally invasive vs. open surgical procedures in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma

  • Kommentare
  • Published:
Der Urologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  1. Abouassaly R, Alibhai SM, Tomlinson G, Timilshina N et al (2010) Unintended consequences of laparoscopic surgery on partial nephrectomy for kidney cancer. J Urol 183:467–472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bazeed MA, Schärfe T, Becht E et al (1986) Conservative surgery of renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 12:238–243

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Becker F, Roos FC, Janssen M et al (2011) Short-term functional and oncologic outcomes of nephron-sparing surgery for renal tumours ≥ 7 cm. Eur Urol 59:931–937

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Becker F, Siemer S, Hack M et al (2006) Excellent long-term cancer control with elective nephron-sparing surgery for selected renal cell carcinomas measuring more than 4 cm. Eur Urol 49:1058–1063

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bensalah K, Pantuck AJ, Rioux-Leclercq N et al (2010) Positive surgical margin appears to have negligible impact on survival of renal cell carcinomas treated by nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol 57:466–471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chawla SN, Crispen PL, Hanlon AL et al (2006) The natural history of observed enhancing renal masses: meta-analysis and review of the world literature. J Urol 175:425–431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC et al (2003) Solid renal tumors: an analysis of pathological features related to tumor size. J Urol 170:2217–2220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gill IS, Aron M, Gervais DA, Jewett MA (2010) Clinical practice. Small renal mass. N Engl J Med 362:624–634

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Lane BR et al (2007) Comparison of 1800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors. J Urol 178:41–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Go AS, Chertow GM, Fan D et al (2004) Chronic kidney disease and the risks of death, cardiovascular events, and hospitalization. N Engl J Med 351:1296–1305

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Herrlinger A, Schott G, Schafhauser W, Schrott KM (1992) The significance of tumor diameter in renal cell carcinoma. Urologe A 31:70–75

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Huang WC, Levey AS, Serio AM et al (2006) Chronic kidney disease after nephrectomy in patients with renal cortical tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 7:735–740

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Iannuccilli JD, Dupuy DE, Mayo-Smith WW (2012) Solid renal masses: effectiveness and safety of image-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation. Abdom Imaging 37:647–658

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim SP, Shah ND, Weight CJ et al (2011) Contemporary trends in nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma in the United States: results from a population based cohort. J Urol 186:1779–1785

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kunkle DA, Crispen PL, Chen DY et al (2007) Enhancing renal masses with zero net growth during active surveillance. J Urol 177:849–853

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kunkle DA, Egleston BL, Uzzo RG (2008) Excise, ablate or observe: the small renal mass dilemma – a meta-analysis and review. J Urol 179:1227–1233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lughezzani G, Jeldres C, Isbarn H et al (2009) Tumor size is a determinant of the rate of stage T1 renal cell cancer synchronous metastasis. J Urol 182:1287–1293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Marberger M, Pugh RCB, Auvert J et al (1981) Conservative surgery of renal carcinoma: the EIRSS experience. Br J Urol 53:528–532

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Marszalek M, Meixl H, Polajnar M et al (2009) Laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison of 200 patients. Eur Urol 55:1171–1178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pahernik S, Roos F, Hampel C et al (2006) Nephron sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma with normal contralateral kidney: 25 years of experience. J Urol 175:2027–2031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pahernik S, Roos F, Röhrig B, Wiesner C et al (2008) Elective nephron sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma larger than 4 cm. J Urol 179:71–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pahernik S, Ziegler S, Roos F et al (2007) Small renal tumors: correlation of clinical and pathological features with tumor size. J Urol 178:414–417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Remzi M, Ozsoy M, Klingler HC et al (2006) Are small renal tumors harmless? Analysis of histopathological features according to tumors 4 cm or less in diameter. J Urol 176:896–899

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Roos FC, Brenner W, Müller M et al (2011) Oncologic long-term outcome of elective nephron-sparing surgery versus radical nephrectomy in patients with renal cell carcinoma stage pT1b or greater in a matched-pair cohort. Urology 77:803–808

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Smaldone MC, Kutikov A, Egleston B et al (2012) Assessing performance trends in laparoscopic nephrectomy and nephron-sparing surgery for localized renal tumors. Urology 80:286–291

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sprenkle PC, Power N, Ghoneim T et al (2012) Comparison of open and minimally invasive partial nephrectomy for renal tumors 4–7 centimeters. Eur Urol 61:593–599

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Springer C, Hoda MR, Fajkovic H et al (2013) Laparoscopic vs open partial nephrectomy for T1 renal tumours: evaluation of long-term oncological and functional outcomes in 340 patients. BJU Int 111:281–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt. J.W. Thüroff und F. Roos geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht. Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum der Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität, Universitätsmedizin Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, Deutschland

    J.W. Thüroff & F. Roos

Authors
  1. J.W. Thüroff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Roos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J.W. Thüroff.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thüroff, J., Roos, F. Minimal-invasive vs. offen-chirurgische Verfahren in der Therapie des Nierenkarzinoms. Urologe 54, 231–233 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-014-3673-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-014-3673-3

Search

Navigation