부산대학교 도서관

Objectives: Simple nephrectomies can be challenging with significant morbidity. To prove the hypothesis of "not‐so‐simple" nephrectomy, we compared demographics, perioperative outcomes, and complications between simple and radical nephrectomy in a tertiary referral center. Methods: We analyzed 473 consecutive radical nephrectomies (January 2018–October 2020) and simple nephrectomies (January 2016–October 2020). Univariate and multivariate analysis of perioperative outcomes utilized the Mann–Whitney U test, Chi‐squared test, Mantel–Haenszel test of trend, and multiple linear regression. Radical nephrectomies were classified in cT1, cT2a, and cT2b‐T3 subgroups and compared to simple nephrectomies. Minimally invasive and open techniques were compared between the two groups. Infected versus non‐infected simple nephrectomies were compared. Results: A total of 344 radical and 129 simple nephrectomies were included. Simple nephrectomy was an independent predictor of increased operative time (p = 0.001), length of stay (p = 0.049), and postoperative complications (p < 0.001). Simple nephrectomies had higher operative time (p < 0.001), length of stay (p = 0.014), and postoperative morbidity (p < 0.001) than cT1 radical nephrectomies and significantly more Clavien 1–2 complications than cT2a radical nephrectomies (p = 0.001). The trend was similar in minimally invasive operations. However, conversion to open rates was not significantly different. Infected simple nephrectomies had increased operative time (p < 0.001), length of stay (p = 0.005), blood loss (p = 0.016), and intensive care stay (p = 0.019). Conclusions: Patients undergoing simple nephrectomy experienced increased operative time and morbidity. Simple nephrectomy carries higher morbidity than radical nephrectomy in tumors ≤10 cm. Robotic simple nephrectomies may reduce open conversion rates. Postoperative intensive care and enhanced recovery may be essential in simple nephrectomy planning with infected pathology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]