Journals / Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology / 2010 / Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 1

Our experience of laparoscopic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy and early results

Laparoskopik retroperitoneal parsiyel nefrektomi deneyimlerimiz ve erken dönem sonuçlarımız

Pages
7–12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It can be easily performed by experienced surgeons on patients with well-defined indications.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy has become an effective alternative for small renal tumors.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, we present our 20 retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) cases.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It can be easily performed by experienced surgeons on patients with well-defined indications.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2006 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy has become an effective alternative for small renal tumors. In this study, we present our 20 retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) cases. Materials and methods: Retroperitoneal LPN was performed in 20 patients with renal tumor between December 2006 and June 2009. After retroperitoneal access and balloon dilation in lumbotomy position, the procedure was performed through the trocars located on the middle, anterior, and posterior axillary lines. Renal pedicle was reached by following psoas muscle. Renal artery was occluded by locking with a vascular strip. The tumor tissue was identified, and resected by electrocautery and scissors. Renal artery was not locked with the vascular strip in one case, and tumor was resected with harmonic scalpel. After placement of a surgicel, the parenchymal repair was accomplished with 2/0 vicryl suture. Results: Mean age was 61 (range 52-74) years and tumor size was 3.1 (range 1.8-4.1) cm. Mean duration of warm ischemia and operation were 29 (range 22-36) min and 185 (range 148-234) min, respectively. The collecting system was opened in two patients. The collecting system repair was accomplished with 3/0 vicryl suture. Mean estimated blood loss during operation was 204 (range 165-280) mL. The drain was removed on 2nd (1-8) day postoperatively. Mean hospital stay was 4 (range 3-9) days. Pathological examination has revealed renal cell carcinoma in 19 cases (13 with clear cell, 5 with papillary cell, 1 with chromophobe cell) and angiomyolipoma in 1 case. The surgical margin was negative in all cases. At a median follow-up of 11 months (range 2-30), we did not observe local recurrence or distant metastasis in any patients. Conclusion: LPN is accepted as a less invasive method in comparison with other therapeutic alternatives in treatment of renal tumors. It can be easily performed by experienced surgeons on patients with well-defined indications.

Özet

Amaç: Laparoskopik parsiyel nefrektomi küçük boyutlu renal tümörlerde etkili bir alternatiftir. Bu çalışmada 20 retroperitoneal laparoskopik parsiyel nefrektomi (LPN) vakamız sunulmuştur. Gereç ve Yöntem: Aralık 2006-Haziran 2009 tarihleri arasında böbrek tümörü olan 20 hastaya retroperitoneal LPN uygulandı. Operasyon, lumbotomi pozisyonunda retroperitoneal giriş ve balon dilatasyon sonrası orta, ön ve arka aksiler hatlar üzerine yerleştirilen trokarlardan gerçekleştirildi. Psoas kası izlenerek renal pediküle ulaşıldı. Renal arter, damar askısıyla kilitlenerek sıkıştırıldı. Tümör dokusu bulunup koter ve makas yardımıyla rezeke edildi. Bir hastada renal arter damar askısına alınmadı ve tümör harmonik bıçak ile rezeke edildi. Surgicel yerleştirilip parankim onarımı 2/0 vicryl ile yapıldı. Bulgular: Ortalama hasta yaşı 61 yıl (dağılım 52-74), ortalama tümör çapı ise 3.1 (dağılım 1.8-4.1) cm idi. Ortalama sıcak iskemi süresi ve ortalama ameliyat süresi sırasıyla 29 (dağılım 22-36) dk ve 185 (dağılım 148-234) dk idi. İki hastada toplayıcı sistem açıldı. Toplayıcı sistem 3/0 vicryl ile onarıldı. Ameliyat sırasında ortalama tahmini kan kaybı 204 (dağılım 165-280) mL idi. Ameliyat sonrası ortalama 2. (dağılım 1-8) gün hastaların dreni çekildi. Hastanede ortalama kalış süresi 4 (dağılım 3-9) gün oldu. Patoloji sonuçları 19 olguda renal hücreli karsinom (13 berrak hücreli, 5 papiller hücreli, 1 kromofob hücreli), 1 olguda anjiomiyolipom olarak rapor edildi. Bütün hastalarda cerrahi sınırı negatif geldi. Ortanca takip süresi 11 (dağılım 2-30) ay içinde hastaların hiçbirinde lokal nüks ve uzak metastaz saptanmadı. Sonuç: Böbrek tümörlerinin tedavisinde LPN diğer tedavi seçenekleriyle karşılaştırıldığında daha az invazif bir tedavi yaklaşımı olarak kabul edilmektedir. Endikasyonu doğru olarak konmuş hastalarda deneyimli cerrahlar tarafından rahatlıkla uygulanabilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

TUĞCU, V., BİTKİN, A., POLAT, H., GÜRBÜZ, N., TAŞÇI, A. İ. (2010). Our experience of laparoscopic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy and early results. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 1, 7–12. https://ajindex.com/articles/328681

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. European Network of Cancer Registries. Eurocim version 4.0. European incidence database V2.3, 730 entity dictionary (2001), Lyon, 2001
  2. Lindblad P. Epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma. Scand J Surg 2004; 93:88-96
  3. Bergstrom A, Hsieh CC, Lindblad P, Lu CM, Cook NR, Wolk A. Obesity and renal cell cancer–a quantitative review. Br J Cancer 2001;85:984-90
  4. Pischon T, Lahmann PH, Boeing H, Tjonneland A, Halkjaer J, Overvad K, et al. Body size and risk of renal cell carcinoma in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Int J Cancer 2006;118:728-38
  5. Kural AR, Demirkesen O, Önal B, Öbek C, Tunç B, Önder AU, et al. Outcome of nephron-sparing surgery: elective versus imperative indications. Urol Int 2003;71:190-6
  6. Winfield HN, Donovan JF, Godet AS, Clayman RV. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: initial case report for benign disease. J Endourol 1993;7:521-6
  7. Gill I, Delworth MG, Munch LC. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy. J Urol 1994;152:1539-42
  8. Fergany AF, Hafez KS, Novick AC. Long-term results of nephron sparing surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: 10-year follow-up. J Urol 2000;163:442-5
  9. Lerner SE, Hawkins CA, Blute ML, Grabner A, Wollan PC, Eickholt JT, et al. Disease outcome in patients with low stage renal cell carcinoma treated with nephron sparing or radical surgery. J Urol 1996;155:1868-73
  10. Lau WK, Blute ML, Weaver AL, Torres VE, Zincke H. Matched comparison of radical nephrectomy versus nephron-sparing surgery in patients with unilateral renal cell carcinoma and a normal contralateral kidney. Mayo Clin Proc 2000;75:1236-42
  11. McDougall EM, Clayman RV, Anderson K. Laparoscopic wedge resection of a renal tumor: initial experience. J Laparosendosc Surg 1993;3:577-9
  12. Piper NY, Bishoff JT, Magee C, Haffron JM, Flanigan RC, Mintiens A, et al. Is a 1-CM margin necessary during nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma? Urology 2001;58:849-52
  13. Castilla EA, Liou LS, Abrahams NA, Fergany A, Rybicki LA, Myles J, et al. Prognostic importance of resection margin width after nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma. Urology 2002;60:993-7
  14. Sutherland SE, Resnick MI, Maclennan GT, Goldman HB. Does the size of the surgical margin in partial nephrectomy for renal cell cancer really matter? J Urol 2002;167:61-4
  15. Uzzo RG, Novick AC. Nephron sparing surgery for renal tumors: indications, techniques and outcomes. J Urol 2001;166:6-18
  16. Gill IS, Desai MM, Ka