Why the study?
Does veno-venous bypass reduce complication rates compared to cardiopulmonary bypass in patients with RCC undergoing high level IVC tumor thrombectomy and radical nephrectomy?
Does veno-venous bypass reduce complication rates compared to cardiopulmonary bypass in patients with RCC undergoing high level IVC tumor thrombectomy and radical nephrectomy?
Veno-venous bypass does not significantly decrease complication rates compared to cardiopulmonary bypass during high-level IVC tumor thrombectomy for RCC, suggesting the choice of bypass can be individualized.
Bypass choice may be individualized in high-level IVC thrombectomy for RCC; leaves open optimal strategy in prospective trials.
PURPOSE: To determine if patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with levels III and IV tumor thrombi are receive any reduction in complication rate utilizing veno-venous bypass (VVB) over cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) for high level (III/IV) inferior vena cava (IVC) tumor thrombectomy and concomitant radical nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From May 1990 to August 2011, we reviewed 21 patients that had been treated for RCC with radical nephrectomy and concomitant IVC thrombectomy employing either CPB (n =16) or VVB (n=5). We retrospectively reviewed our study population for complication rates and perioperative characteristics. RESULTS: Our results are reported using the validated Dindo-Clavien Classification system comparing the VVB and CPB cohorts. No significant difference was noted in minor complication rate (60.0% versus 68.7%, P=1.0), major complication rate (40.0% versus 31.3%, P=1.0), or overall complication rate (60.0% versus 62.5%, P=1.0) comparing VVB versus CPB. We also demonstrated a trend towards decreased time on bypass (P=0.09) in the VVB cohort. CONCLUSION: The use of VVB over CPB provides no decrease in minor, major, or overall complication rate. The use of VVB however, can be employed on an individualized basis with final decision on vascular bypass selection left to the discretion of the surgeon based on specifics of the individual case.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Simon et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: