So, after 2-1/2 years of monitoring a lesion on my right kidney, the latest ultrasound indicates that it has increased in size from the original 1.5cm to 2.0cm in that time period. My urologist is still not sold on the fact that it's a malignancy, but since it has grown, he feels it's time to treat it. The options he gave me were the partial nephrectomy noted in the subject of this post, cryoablation or a biopsy to determine if it was, in fact, malignant. I ruled out the biopsy immediately, saying that if I was going to have needles stuck in me, I'd rather just have it ablated instead of going through the process of the biopsy only to have to go through some other process if the biopsy showed a malignancy. His recommendation was to have the partial nephrectomy. I thought it over for a day and finally came to the conclusion that the nephrectomy was the way to go. I did a lot of reading about the procedure and it seems that it is the gold standard of treatment, with positive outcomes in the same range (99%) as radical nephrectomy. The data I read seemed to indicate that cryoablation has something in the 90% to 95% range for positive outcomes. I decided I liked the higher percentage and the fact that the partial nephrectomy gets the offending tissue completely out of my body. I am having the procedure done on June 22nd and I'm told hospitalization will be one or two days with a total recovery time of three or four weeks.
I'm wondering if anyone else has had this done and, if so, is willing to share his or her experiences.