Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Selective Arterial Clamping Versus Hilar Clamping for Minimally Invasive Partial Nephrectomy

  • Minimally Invasive Surgery (T Guzzo, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Partial nephrectomy has become an accepted treatment of cT1 renal masses as it provides improved long-term renal function compared to radical nephrectomy (Campbell et al. J Urol. 182:1271–9, 2009). Hilar clamping is utilized to help reduce bleeding and improve visibility during tumor resection. However, concern over risk of kidney injury with hilar clamping has led to new techniques to reduce length of warm ischemia time (WIT) during partial nephrectomy. These techniques have progressed over the years starting with early hilar unclamping, controlled hypotension during tumor resection, selective arterial clamping, minimal margin techniques, and off-clamp procedures. Selective arterial clamping has progressed significantly over the years. The main question is what are the exact short- and long-term renal effects from increasing clamp time. Moreover, does it make sense to perform these more time-consuming or more complex procedures if there is no long-term preservation of kidney function? More recent studies have shown no difference in renal function 6 months from surgery when selective arterial clamping or even hilar clamping is employed, although there is short-term improved decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) with selective clamping and off-clamp techniques (Komninos et al. BJU Int. 115:921-8, 2015; Shah et al. 117:293-9, 2015; Kallingal et al. BJU Int. doi:10.1111/bju.13192, 2015). This paper reviews the progression of total hilar clamping to selective arterial clamping (SAC) and the possible difference its use makes on long-term renal function. SAC may be attempted based on surgeon’s decision-making, but may be best used for more complex, larger, more central or hilar tumors and in patients who have renal insufficiency at baseline or a solitary kidney.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Campbell SC, Novick AC, Belldegrun A, et al. Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass. J Urol. 2009;182:1271–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Papalia R, Simone G, Ferriero M, et al. Laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy without renal ischaemia for tumours larger than 4cm: perioperative and functional outcomes. World J Urol. 2012;30:671–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kreshover JE, Kavoussi LR, Richstone L. Hilar clamping versus off-clamp laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for T1b tumors. Curr Opin Urol. 2013;23:399–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Scosyrev E, Messing EM, Sylvester R, et al. Renal function after nephron-sparing surgery versus radical nephrectomy: results from EORTC randomized trial 30904. Eur Urol. 2014;65:372–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Lane BR, et al. Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors. J Urol. 2007;178:41–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Abuelo JG. Normotensive ischemic acute renal failure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:797–805.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Secin FP. Importance and limits of ischemia in renal partial surgery: experimental and clinical research. Adv Urol 2008:102461

  8. Thompson RH, Lane BR, Lohse CM, et al. Every minute counts when the renal hilum is clamped during partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol. 2010;58:340–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Thompson RH, Lane BR, Lohse CM, et al. Renal function after partial nephrectomy: effect of warm ischemia relative to quantity and quality of preserved kidney. Urology. 2012;79:356–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nguyen MM, Gill IS. Halving ischemia time during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2008;179:627–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Eisenberg MS, Patil MB, Thangathurai D, et al. Innovations in laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy: a novel ‘zero ischemia’ technique. Curr Opin Urol. 2011;21:93–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Papalia R, Simone G, Ferriero M, et al. Laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy with controlled hypotensive anesthesia to avoid hilar clamping: feasibility, safety and perioperative functional outcomes. J Urol. 2012;187:1190–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gill IS, Patil MB, Abreu ALDC, et al. Zero ischemia anatomical partial nephrectomy: a novel approach. J Urol. 2012;187:807–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ng CK, Gill IS, Patil MB, et al. Anatomic renal artery branch microdissection to facilitate zero-ischemia partial nephrectomy. European Urology. 2012;61:67–74. Hilar microdissection was performed in medial to lateral orientation using preoperative 3D imaging for guidance and extended intrarenally for selective arterial clamping using neurovascular aneurysm microsurgical bulldog clamp. Compared to off clamp, those undergoing SAC had larger tumors, were more hilar, and more complex. No significant difference in renal function between SAC and off-clamp procedure up to 2 months post-operatively.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Desai MM, Abreu ALDC, Leslie S, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy with superselective versus main artery clamping: a retrospective comparison. Eur Urol. 2014;66:713–9. SAC compared to hilar clamping. SAC group composed of patients with larger, more complex, more hilar tumors with longer operative time and higher transfusion rates. SAC group had better preserved eGFR at 4–6 months post-operatively.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Martin GL, Warner JN, Nateras RN, et al. Comparison of total, selective, and nonarterial clamping techniques during laparoscopic and robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy. Journal of Endourology 2012;26(2):152–156. No difference seen in post-operative eGFR between SAC, off clamp, and hilar clamp groups at mean follow-up of 411 days. Off clamping group was older, had smaller tumors, and lower preoperative eGFR.

  17. McClintock TR, Bjurlin MA, Wysock JS, et al. Can selective arterial clamping with fluorescence imaging preserve kidney function during robotic partial nephrectomy? J Urol. 2014;84(2):327–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Shao P, Tang L, Li P, et al. Application of a vascular model and standardization of the renal hilar approach in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for precise segmental artery clamping. Eur Urol. 2013;63:1072–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Furakawa J, Miyake H, Kazushi T, et al. Console-integrated real-time three-dimensional image overlay navigation for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy with selective arterial clamping: early single-centre experience with 17 cases. Int J Med Robotic Comput Assisted Surg. 2014;10:385–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rais-Bahrami S, George AK, Herati AS, et al. Off-clamp versus complete hilar control laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison by clinical stage. BJU Int. 2011;109:1376–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. George AK, Herati AS, Srinivasan AK, et al. Perioperative outcomes of off-clamp vs complete hilar control laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2012;111:E235–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Liu W, Li Y, Chen M, et al. Off-clamp versus complete hilar control partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol. 2014;28(5):567–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Trehan A. Comparison of off-clamp partial nephrectomy and on-clamp partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Int. 2014;93(2):125–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mir MC, Ercole C, Takagi T, et al. Decline in renal function after partial nephrectomy: etiology and prevention. J Urol. 2015;193:1889–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Komninos C, Shin TY, Tuliao P, et al. Renal function is the same 6 months after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy regardless of clamp technique: analysis of outcomes for off-clamp, selective arterial clamp and main artery clamp techniques, with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. BJU Int. 2015;115:921–8. Significant difference seen at 3 months in eGFR reduction in hilar clamping group compared to SAC and off clamp groups, however this difference was not present at 6 months or at 1 year. After 7 days from surgery, only low RENAL score, preoperative eGFR, and type of clamp procedure were predictive of normal renal function. At 1 year follow-up, only age and preoperative eGFR correlated with normal eGFR.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Shah PH, George AK, Moreira DM, et al. To clamp or not to clamp? Long-term functional outcomes for elective off-clamp laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2015;117:293–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kallingal GJS, Weinberg JM, Reis IM, et al. Long-term response to renal ischaemia in the human kidney after partial nephrectomy: results from a prospective clinical trial. BJU Int. 2015. doi:10.1111/bju.13192.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhang Z, et al. Acute kidney injury after partial nephrectomy: role of parenchymal mass reduction and ischemia and impact on subsequent functional recovery. Eur Urol 2015. Median recovery in eGFR from ischemia from partial nephrectomy in solitary kidney was 99% in those without preoperative AKI, 95% for those with grade 1 AKI, 90% for those with grade 2 AKI, and 88% for those with grade 3 AKI up to 12 months after surgery.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Pennsylvania, 51 N. 39th St, MOB 300, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Mona Yezdani, Sue-Jean Yu & David I. Lee

Authors
  1. Mona Yezdani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sue-Jean Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David I. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mona Yezdani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Mona Yezdani MD, Sue-Jean Yu, and David I. Lee each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Minimally Invasive Surgery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yezdani, M., Yu, SJ. & Lee, D.I. Selective Arterial Clamping Versus Hilar Clamping for Minimally Invasive Partial Nephrectomy. Curr Urol Rep 17, 40 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-016-0596-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-016-0596-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation