Resumo O diagnóstico e o manejo das pequenas massas renais têm sido aprimorados nos últimos anos com o desenvolvimento de técnicas de imagem e escores que desempenham papel interessante no planejamento da nefrectomia parcial, fornecendo informações importantes ao cirurgião para determinar o tipo de tratamento em relação a complexidade da massa renal, cuidados pós-operatórios e previsão de complicações após as cirurgias. O objetivo deste estudo é revisar os escores de nefrometria, suas características e relações entre eles no cenário da cirurgia. Os serviços de urologia e radiologia devem decidir qual é o melhor escore de nefrometria para ser utilizado na prática diária.

Abstract In recent years, the development of new imaging techniques and scoring systems have improved the diagnosis and management of small renal masses. Imaging-based nephrometry scoring systems play an interesting role in the planning of nephron-sparing surgery, providing surgeons with the information necessary to determine the complexity of the renal mass, to deliver the appropriate postoperative care, and to predict adverse outcomes. The aim of this study was to review nephrometry scoring systems, evaluating their characteristics and the relationships among them. The urology and radiology communities should decide which nephrometry scoring system will prevail and be used in daily practice.

ABSTRACT Introduction: Nephrometric scores play an interesting role in nephron sparring surgery (NSS) planning. The aim of this study is to evaluate if R.E.N.A.L. score (RS) is capable to predict the occurrence of adverse events in laparoscopic NSS. Materials and Methods: We prospectively studied 150 laparoscopic NSS between 2015 and 2018 to evaluate the relationship between RS and incidence of adverse events. Clavien 3 or superior complications, warm ischemia time (WIT) over 30 minutes, tumor violation, positive surgical margins (PSM) and necessity of amplification of renal parenchyma during the resection of the masses to obtain free margins were considered as adverse events. We compared each item of the RS isolated and divided the patients between low risk and high risk. Results: Adverse results occurred in 48 cases (32%). Amplification of the margin of resection was observed in 28 cases (19%). WIT exceeded 30 minutes in 9 cases (6.1%), complications Clavien 3 or superior occurred in 13 cases (9%) and PSM were detected en 6 cases (4%). Comparing the patients with adverse outcomes and each item of the RS we did not find any statistical difference, but when divided into high risk and low risk, we found that patients in the high risk group had a higher tendency to present ad-verse results - 25.84% vs. 44.26% (p=0.03). Conclusions: RS system is a good way to predict adverse outcomes in NSS, especially in cases over 7. Further studies should focus on robotic approach and patient's characteristics other than the masses’ aspects.