Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Radical Nephrectomy for Paediatric Renal Tumors With Focus on Wilms’ Tumor

Résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVE: To summarize and evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) and compare its safety and efficacy with open radical nephrectomy (ORN) in pediatric renal tumors (RT) and Wilms' tumors (WT). BACKGROUND: ORN is the gold standard treatment for pediatric RT, consisting predominantly of WT. LRN is gaining popularity but remains controversial in pediatric surgical oncology. METHODS: A systematic search was performed for all eligible studies on LRN and comparative studies between LRN and ORN in pediatric RT and WT. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity analysis were conducted. The main endpoints were cancer-related outcomes and surgical morbidity. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were followed. RESULTS: No levels I to II studies were identified. LRN was feasible in nearly 1 in 5 pediatric RT and WT after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with pooled mid-term oncological outcomes (<7% local recurrence, >90% event-free survival) comparable with those of ORN. There was no strong evidence of an increased risk of intraoperative tumor spillage, but lymph node harvest was inadequate in LRN. Large tumors crossing the ipsilateral spinal border were associated with a trend for intraoperative complications and positive margins. Pooled complications rate and hospital stay duration were similar between LRN and ORN. Long-term (>3 years) outcomes are unknown. CONCLUSIONS: Available level III evidence indicates that LRN is a safe alternative to ORN for carefully selected cases, with similar spillage rates and mid-term oncological outcomes. However, there was no advantage in surgical morbidity and lymph node harvest was inadequate with LRN. Tumor-matched-group studies with long-term follow-up are required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.