Campi, Riccardo; Grosso, Antonio A; Lane, Brian R; DE Cobelli, Ottavio; Sanguedolce, Francesco; Hatzichristodoulou, Georgios; Antonelli, Alessandro; Noyes, Sabrina; DI Maida, Fabrizio; Mari, Andrea; Rodriguez-Faba, Oscar; Keeley, Frank X; Langenhuijsen, Johan; Musi, Gennaro; Klatte, Tobias; Roscigno, Marco; Akdogan, Bulent; Furlan, Maria; Karakoyunlu, Nihat; Marszalek, Martin; Capitanio, Umberto; Volpe, Alessandro; Brookman-May, Sabine; Gschwend, Jürgen E; Smaldone, Marc C; Uzzo, Robert G; Kutikov, Alexander; Minervini, Andrea     «

Campi, Riccardo; Grosso, Antonio A; Lane, Brian R; DE Cobelli, Ottavio; Sanguedolce, Francesco; Hatzichristodoulou, Georgios; Antonelli, Alessandro; Noyes, Sabrina; DI Maida, Fabrizio; Mari, Andrea; Rodriguez-Faba, Oscar; Keeley, Frank X; Langenhuijsen, Johan; Musi, Gennaro; Klatte, Tobias; Roscigno, Marco; Akdogan, Bulent; Furlan, Maria; Karakoyunlu, Nihat; Marszalek, Martin; Capitanio, Umberto; Volpe, Alessandro; Brookman-May, Sabine; Gschwend, Jürgen E; Smaldone, Marc C; Uzzo, Robert G; Kutik...     »

BACKGROUND: Over the years, five different Trifecta score definitions have been proposed to optimize the framing of "success" in partial nephrectomy (PN) field. However, such classifications rely on different metrics. The aim of the present study was to explore how the success rate of robotic PN, as well as its drivers, vary according to the currently available definitions of Trifecta. METHODS: Data from consecutive patients with cT1-2N0M0 renal masses treated with robotic PN at 16 referral centers from September 2014 to March 2015 were prospectively collected. Trifecta rate was defined for each of the currently available definitions. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate possible predictors of "Trifecta failure" according to the different adopted formulation. RESULTS: Overall, 289 patients met the inclusion criteria. Among the definitions, Trifecta rates ranged between 66.4% and 85.9%. Multivariable analysis showed that predictors for "Trifecta failure" were mainly tumor-related (i.e. tumor's nephrometry) for those Trifecta scores relying on WIT as a surrogate metric for postoperative renal function deterioration (definitions 1,2), while mainly surgery-related (i.e. ischemia time and excision strategy) for those including the percentage change in postoperative eGFR as the functional cornerstone of Trifecta (definitions 3-5). CONCLUSIONS: There was large variability in rates and predictors of "unsuccessful PN" when using different Trifecta scores. Further research is needed to improve the value of the Trifecta metrics, integrating them into routine patient counseling and standardized assessment of surgical quality across institutions.      «

BACKGROUND: Over the years, five different Trifecta score definitions have been proposed to optimize the framing of "success" in partial nephrectomy (PN) field. However, such classifications rely on different metrics. The aim of the present study was to explore how the success rate of robotic PN, as well as its drivers, vary according to the currently available definitions of Trifecta. METHODS: Data from consecutive patients with cT1-2N0M0 renal masses treated with robotic PN at 16 referral cent...     »