Comparison of Percutaneous and Laparoscopic Renal Cryoablation for Small (<3.0cm) Renal Masses

We reviewed our experience with laparoscopic cryoablation (LCA) and percutaneous cryoablation (PCA) in the management of small renal tumors and compared clinical outcomes, short-term oncologic results, and patient complications. A retrospective comparison of two prospectively collected oncologic databases was performed. Ninety patients underwent PCA for 99 lesions and 81 patients underwent an LCA for 97 lesions. Patient characteristics, perioperative data, and tumor characteristics were recorded including age, estimated blood loss, complication rate, tumor size, and tumor pathology. Patients in both the PCA and LCA groups had similar demographic and tumor characteristics. The PCA group had two major complications (2%), and the LCA group had three major complications (3.7%) (P = 0.374). In the LCA group, estimated blood loss was associated with tumor location with hilar tumor demonstrating a significantly higher mean blood loss (191 mL) compared with endophytic, mesophytic, and exophytic tumors (70 mL, 71 mL, 73.5 mL), respectively (P = 0.05). Malignancies rated in the PCA and LCA groups were 50.5% and 60.0%, respectively (P < 0.05). In the PCA group, nine (9.1%) patients demonstrated treatment failure with a persistent enhancement in the ablation bed. All nine were treated with a subsequent PCA. One patient had subsequent tumor bed enhancement and underwent an open radical nephrectomy. Treatment failed in three (3.1%) patients in the LCA cohort (incomplete ablation or recurrence). With short-term follow-up, both LCA and PCA are safe and effective treatments for small renal masses. Patients undergoing PCA had a reduced hospital stay and a lower surgical complication rate, albeit with an elevated re-treatment rate. Long-term data is needed to establish long-term oncologic efficacy. Renal function did not significantly change in patients after cryoablation, including patients with a solitary kidney.