Lorenzo Bianchi

Dr. Lorenzo Bianchi

Division of Urology, Istituto di Ricovero e Cure a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

32Years (1995-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 November 2021 in European Urology Focus
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
RSRiccardo Schiavina
Riccardo Schiavina
LBLorenzo Bianchi
Lorenzo Bianchi
SLSimone Lodi
Simone Lodi
LCLaura Cercenelli
Laura Cercenelli
FCFrancesco Chessa
Francesco Chessa
EBEugenio Brunocilla
Eugenio Brunocilla

1 October 2021 in European Urology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
LBLorenzo Bianchi
Lorenzo Bianchi
FCFrancesco Chessa
Francesco Chessa
AAAndrea Angiolini
Andrea Angiolini
LCLaura Cercenelli
Laura Cercenelli
SLSimone Lodi
Simone Lodi
RSRiccardo Schiavina
Riccardo Schiavina

1 June 2021 in Clinical Genitourinary Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
RSRiccardo Schiavina
Riccardo Schiavina
LBLorenzo Bianchi
Lorenzo Bianchi
FCFrancesco Chessa
Francesco Chessa
UBUmberto Barbaresi
Umberto Barbaresi
Laura CercenelliLaura Cercenelli
Laura Cercenelli
EBEugenio Brunocilla
Eugenio Brunocilla

1 December 2020 in Clinical Genitourinary Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
LBLorenzo Bianchi
Lorenzo Bianchi
UBUmberto Barbaresi
Umberto Barbaresi
LCLaura Cercenelli
Laura Cercenelli
BBBarbara Bortolani
Barbara Bortolani
CGCaterina Gaudiano
Caterina Gaudiano
RSRiccardo Schiavina
Riccardo Schiavina

1 March 2018 in European Urology Focus
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Andrea CocciAndrea Cocci
Andrea Cocci
GPGiulio Patruno
Giulio Patruno
GGGiorgio Gandaglia
Giorgio Gandaglia
MRMichele Rizzo
Michele Rizzo
Francesco EspertoFrancesco Esperto
Francesco Esperto
Giorgio Ivan RussoGiorgio Ivan Russo
Giorgio Ivan Russo

1 March 2023 in Journal of Endourology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SPSavio Domenico Pandolfo
Savio Domenico Pandolfo
ABAlp T. Beksac
Alp T. Beksac
IDIthaar H Derweesh
Ithaar H Derweesh
ACAntonio Celia
Antonio Celia
RSRiccardo Schiavina
Riccardo Schiavina
RARiccardo Autorino
Riccardo Autorino
Purpose: : To compare outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and percutaneous tumor ablation (PTA) for completely endophytic renal masses. Methods: : Data of patients who underwent RAPN or PTA for treatment of completely endophytic (three points for “E” domain of R.E.N.A.L. score) were collected from seven high-volume U.S. and European centers. PTA included cryoablation, radiofrequency, or microwave ablation. Baseline characteristics, clinical, surgical, and postoperative outcomes were compared. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was calculated with Kaplan–Meier analysis. Trifecta was used as arbitrary combined outcome parameter as proxy for treatment “quality.” Multivariable logistic regression model assessed predictors of trifecta failure. Results: : One hundred fifty-two patients (RAPN, n = 60; PTA, n = 92) were included in the analysis. RAPN group was younger ( p < 0.001), had lower American Society of Anesthesiologists score ( p = 0.002), and higher baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate ( p < 0.001). There was no difference in clinical tumor size, clinical T stage, and tumor complexity scores. PTA had significantly lower rate of overall ( p < 0.001) and minor ( p < 0.001) complications. ΔeGFR at 1 year was statistically higher for RAPN (−15.5 mL/min vs −3.1 mL/min; p = 0.005), no difference in ΔeGFR at last follow-up ( p = 0.22) was observed. No difference in recurrences (RAPN, n = 2; PTA, n = 6) and RFS was found ( p = 0.154). Trifecta achievement was higher for RAPN but not statistically different (65.3% vs 58.8%; p = 0.477). R.E.N.A.L. Nephrometry Score resulted predictive of trifecta failure (odds ratio = 1.47; confidence interval = 1.13–1.90; p = 0.004). Conclusions: PTA confirms to be an effective treatment for completely endophytic renal masses, offering low complications and good mid-term functional and oncologic outcomes. These outcomes compare favorably with those of RAPN, which seem to be the preferred option for younger and less comorbid patients.