Comparison of Trifecta and Pentafecta Outcomes across 3 Surgical Modalities of Partial Nephrectomy (PN) – Open, Lap, and Robotic

TL;DR

This study compares the success of three kidney surgery methods using Trifecta and Pentafecta outcomes, finding no significant differences between them.

Contribution

The study provides a comparative analysis of Trifecta and Pentafecta outcomes across open, laparoscopic, and robotic partial nephrectomy.

Findings

Trifecta and Pentafecta outcomes showed no significant differences among the three surgical modalities.

Robotic and laparoscopic methods had lower morbidity compared to open surgery.

Open surgery had higher warm ischemia time, hospital stay, and estimated blood loss.

Abstract

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common solid tumor in the kidney (90%), accounting for about 3% of all cancers in adults. Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the surgical procedure primarily used for the treatment of localized kidney tumors. Two commonly used terms to describe the complexity and success of a partial nephrectomy procedure are “trifecta” and “pentafecta.” Trifecta is defined as Warm ischemia time (WIT) ≤ 25min or Cold ischemia time (CIT) ≤ 60min, Negative surgical margin (NSM), and no perioperative Clavien-Dindo complications (CDC) of Gr 3 or more [8], whereas pentafecta is defined as trifecta plus >90% preservation of e-Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and no increase in chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage at 12-months post-operative period. We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent partial nephrectomy at a single high-volume tertiary centre, from 2012 to 2020. We included patients who underwent partial nephrectomy by any of the three routes including open (OPN), laparoscopic (LPN), or robotic-assisted (RPN), and in which the follow-up data was available. We compared the trifecta and pentafecta outcomes across the three surgical modalities. We had a total of 183 patients in our study. Twenty-nine percent (53 patients) underwent open surgery, 12.6% (23 patients) underwent laparoscopic surgery and 58.5% (107) underwent robotic assisted surgery. The number of patients who fell under the low risk category in the RENAL scoring system were 70(38.3%), intermediate risk 79 (43.2%) and high risk 34 (18.6%). In the high risk RENAL score group, trifecta was achieved in 5 (50%) patients in OPN, 1(50%) in LPN and 7(31.8%) in RPN with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.581) whereas pentafecta was achieved in 3 (30%) patients in OPN, 1 (50%) in LPN and 7 (31.8%) in RPN with no statistically significant difference (0.855). In the overall cohort, mean WIT, mean hospital stay and mean EBL were higher in OPN as compared to LPN and RPN which was statistically significant (p < 0.001), whereas there was no statistical difference in mean operative time between the three modalities (p = 0.580). Renal tumors can be safely treated by RPN or LPN with lesser morbidity as compared to OPN. Trifecta and Pentafecta outcomes had no significant difference among OPN, LPN, and RPN. RPN and LPN may be considered feasible and safe surgical approaches ensuring good functional outcomes.

Figures