For many years, radical kidney cancer surgery has been the standard treatment for most kidney cancer patients. Radical kidney cancer surgery means removing the tumor from the kidney along with the perinephric fat, local lymph nodes and even the adrenal gland on the same side. The purpose of such surgery is to remove the tumor as completely as possible and reduce the risk of recurrence and metastasis after surgery, which is called the “gold standard” of kidney cancer treatment by some people. However, with the advancement of medical science and related research, this “gold standard” is increasingly being challenged. The challenge to radical kidney cancer treatment is partial nephrectomy, also known as surgery to preserve the kidney unit. A partial nephrectomy is a procedure in which the part of the kidney with the tumor is removed and the normal part of the kidney is preserved. Which of these two procedures is more advantageous? This question involves two aspects of discussion. One, is the tumor more likely to recur after partial nephrectomy? Because the traditional radical nephrectomy removes the whole kidney with tumor, its treatment effect has been clinically proven to be very effective for decades. However, can partial nephrectomy achieve the treatment effect of radical nephrectomy for kidney cancer? This is a question that clinical scholars have been concerned about, and one of the reasons why partial nephrectomy has not become mainstream. Tumor control effect is the most important basis for choosing tumor treatment method. If a treatment method cannot control tumor, even if this treatment method has many advantages, it has to be eliminated. After more than ten years of controlled studies, scientists found that for patients with early stage kidney cancer, there is almost no difference between partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy in terms of tumor recurrence after surgery. That means partial nephrectomy can achieve the same treatment effect as radical nephrectomy for kidney cancer. The second question is what are the adverse consequences of radical nephrectomy for kidney cancer? This surgical method should be strictly speaking more than a hundred years old, but it is still in the last half century that it has been officially and widely used in clinical practice. The procedure has been standardized by Robson, an American scholar, and has been the classical method for kidney cancer treatment. After decades of observation, researchers found that patients who had one kidney removed had a chronic renal insufficiency problem after several years. Because everyone’s organ function declines over time, this is a natural law that cannot be changed.