经腹膜后入路与经腹腔入路腹腔镜手术治疗大体积肾癌的疗效

目的:探讨经腹膜后入路与经腹腔入路行腹腔镜手术治疗大体积肾癌的临床疗效。方法:73例大体积肾癌患者均行腹腔镜肾癌根治术,根据手术入路分为两组,经腹腔入路组(n=35)与经腹膜后入路组(n=38),对比两组患者手术基本情况。结果:经腹腔入路组患者手术时间显著长于经腹膜后入路组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);两组患者术中出血量、输血例数、中转开放手术例数、入ICU例数、住院时间、并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P0.05);经腹腔入路组术后病理检测T分级高于经腹膜后入路组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:腹腔镜肾癌根治术治疗大体积肾癌安全可靠,经验丰富的医师应根据两种入路的优势,为患者选择适宜的手术方案。     

腹腔镜右肾上腺切除术:经腹与经腹膜后入路的比较

目的比较经腹腔与经腹膜后入路行腹腔镜解剖性右肾上腺切除术的临床效果。方法2011年1月至2016年12月于本科室行腹腔镜解剖性右肾上腺切除术患者252例,经腹腔入路139例,经后腹腔入路113例,比较两种入路的手术时间、术中出血量、中转开放率、术中并发症、术后镇痛药物应用及术后进食时间。按肿瘤大小将该组资料分为病变大小≥5cm和病变大小5cm两个亚组,分别比较各亚组中两种入路的手术指标。结果经腹腔入路组平均手术时间(86.44分钟)显著低于经腹膜后入路组(107.43分钟)(P0.01),平均出血量(47.32ml)显著少于经腹膜后入路组(75.49ml)(P0.01),但在病变大小≥5cm的亚组中,两种手术入路无统计学差异。结论腹腔镜右肾上腺切除术经腹腔入路具有手术时间短、出血量少的优势,但对于病变大小≥5cm,无明显优势。     

经腹腔与腹膜后行腹腔镜肾癌根治术的比较

目的:比较经腹腔和腹膜后方式行腹腔镜肾癌根治术的优缺点。方法:随机将60例肾癌患者分别经腹腔或腹膜后方式行腹腔镜下肾癌根治术,比较两组术中、术后的情况。结果:与经腹腔方式比较,腹膜后方式处理肾动脉平均时间、处理肾静脉平均时间、总的手术平均时间较短。但经腹膜和腹膜后方式在估计出血量、术后住院时间、术中并发症和术后并发症发生率上无明显差异。结论:腹腔镜下经腹腔或腹膜后方式行肾癌根治术均有效,但后者在处理肾门和总的手术时间方面更快。     

腹腔镜左肾上腺切除术:经腹与经腹膜后入路的比较

目的比较经腹腔与经腹膜后入路行腹腔镜左肾上腺切除术的效果。方法回顾性分析2011年1月～2016年12月腹腔镜解剖性左肾上腺切除术242例资料,经腹腔入路132例,经腹膜后入路110例,按肿瘤长径5 cm和≥5 cm分为2个亚组,分别比较手术时间、术中出血量、中转开放率、术中并发症、术后镇痛药物应用及术后排气时间。结果肿瘤长径5 cm的亚组中,相比经腹膜后入路,经腹腔入路手术时间短[中位数90(35～170)min vs.95(50～220)min,Z=-2.141,P=0.032],出血量少[30(10～300)ml vs.60(20～800)ml,Z=-7.504,P=0.000],但术后排气晚[2(1～5)d vs.2(1～5)d,Z=-4.616,P=0.000],其余观察指标无统计学差异;肿瘤长径≥5 cm的亚组中,2种入路术中及术后指标均无统计学差异。结论腹腔镜左肾上腺切除术,肿瘤长径5 cm时经腹腔入路手术时间较短,出血量较少,经腹膜后入路术后肠道功能恢复较快;肿瘤长径≥5 cm时2种手术入路无显著差异。     

不同入路腹腔镜手术与开放手术在巨大肾上腺肿瘤切除中的对比研究

目的:探讨不同手术方式在巨大肾上腺肿瘤(6cm)切除术中的应用。方法:回顾性分析我院2012年1月~2016年12月行腹腔镜下巨大肾上腺肿瘤切除术的患者临床资料,根据手术入路不同分为经腹腔入路组(18例)与经腹膜后入路组(12例)。选取同期16例行开放经腹途径肾上腺肿瘤切除术的患者作为对照。比较三组患者的手术时间、术中失血量、术后住院时间、术后引流管保留时间及术后并发症等相关指标。结果:经腹腔入路组和经腹膜后入路组的手术时间显著少于开放手术组(P0.05),但经腹腔入路组与经腹膜后入路组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。经腹腔入路组术中失血量显著少于经腹膜后入路组和开放手术组(P0.05),但经腹膜后入路组与开放手术组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。经腹腔入路组和经腹膜后入路组术后住院时间显著短于开放手术组(P0.05),但经腹腔入路组与经腹膜后入路组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后引流管保留时间及术后并发症三组间比较差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:腹腔镜手术治疗巨大肾上腺肿瘤安全可行,对于腹腔镜手术操作娴熟的术者,经腹腔入路可能更具优势。     

经腹腔与经腹膜后入路腹腔镜下肾上腺巨大肿瘤手术的疗效分析

目的:比较经腹腔与经腹膜后入路腹腔镜下肾上腺巨大肿瘤手术的不同特点,探讨腹腔镜下肾上腺巨大肿瘤手术的入路选择。方法:回顾分析2012年7月~2014月11月施行的13例腹腔镜肾上腺手术经验,其中经腹腔入路7例,经腹膜后入路6例。对肿瘤直径,手术时间,术中出血量,术后平均下床时间,肠道功能恢复时间及术后平均住院日,术中、术后并发症等指标进行比较。结果:肿瘤平均直径、平均手术时间、术中平均出血量两组差异无统计学意义(P0.05),术后平均下床时间、肠功能平均恢复时间、术后平均住院时间差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。术中经腹腔途径组1例发生损伤下腔静脉中转开放手术。13例患者均获随访,随访1~25个月,平均12.2个月,均未出现术后并发症。结论:两种不同的入路施行腹腔镜肾上腺巨大肿瘤手术都是安全可行的,两种手术入路各有优缺点,经腹膜后入路在术后恢复方面优于经腹腔入路。     

腹腔镜治疗大体积肾癌的临床经验及与开放手术的比较

目的探讨腹腔镜治疗大体积（直径〉7cm）肾癌的临床应用价值,并与开放手术的疗效进行比较。方法回顾性分析2001年10月至2012年6月于北京大学第一医院接受肾根治性手术治疗、术后病理诊断为肾癌且肿瘤最大直径〉7cm患者的临床资料。统计患者各项围手术期信息,进行腹腔镜手术和开放手术的对比。结果共388例患者入组,其中腹腔镜手术71例,开放手术317例。腹腔镜手术组包括23例经腹腔入路和48例经腹膜后入路,较开放组患者相比,腹腔镜组术中出血量少（358．73mL vs．462．02mL,P=0．002）,术后住院日短（6．59d vs．8．87d,P=0．000）,但手术时间偏长（197．60min vs．173．07min,P=0．003）,肿瘤体积较小（8．82cm vs．9．50cm,P=0．018）。结论采用腹腔镜手术治疗大体积肾癌安全可行,具有创伤小、恢复快的优势。对于有一定腹腔镜手术基础的医师,在合理把握适应证、选择合适手术入路的基础上,可以开展腹腔镜手术治疗大体积肾癌。但尚需进一步研究来了解其远期肿瘤控制结果。     

不同入路腹腔镜肾部分切除术在早期肾癌患者中的应用

目的探索不同入路腹腔镜肾部分切除术在早期肾癌患者中的应用及其对应激指标和免疫功能等的影响。方法选取焦作市人民医院泌尿外科2020年8月至2022年12月收治的88例早期肾癌患者作为研究对象, 依照手术入路方式分为常规经腹入路组和经后腹腔入路组。常规经腹入路组44例, 采用经腹入路腹腔镜肾部分切除术。经后腹腔入路组44例, 采用经后腹腔入路腹腔镜肾部分切除术, 对比两组患者手术指标、应激指标、免疫功能、并发症发生情况。结果经后腹腔入路组手术通道建立时间、手术时间、术中出血量、术后出血量低于常规经腹入路组(P<0.05)。两组术后12 h血清肾上腺素、丙二醛、晚期氧化蛋白产物水平均较术前升高, 经后腹腔入路组低于常规经腹入路组(P<0.05)。两组术后12 h CD3+、CD4+、CD4+/CD8+淋巴细胞水平均较术前降低, 经后腹腔入路组高于常规经腹入路组(P<0.05)。经后腹腔入路组并发症发生率(4.55%)与常规经腹入路组(11.36%)对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论经后腹腔入路腹腔镜肾部分切除术可调节早期肾癌患者免疫功能, 改善手术指标, 调控...     

机器人辅助腹腔镜下肾部分切除术两种入路的对比研究

目的:比较经腹膜后和经腹腔两种手术入路机器人辅助腹腔镜下肾部分切除术的临床疗效。方法:回顾性分析2018年6月-2021年1月于甘肃省人民医院行肾部分切除术患者67例的临床资料,根据手术入路不同将患者分为经腹腔组和经腹膜后组。经腹腔入路组患者共26例(男11例,女15例),平均年龄为(53.5±9.7)岁;经腹膜后入路组患者共41例(男20例,女21例),平均年龄为(55.2±12.5)岁。比较两组患者的手术疗效、病理结果和围手术期情况。结果:67例患者的机器人辅助腹腔镜下肾部分切除术均顺利完成,无中转开腹手术。经腹腔入路和经腹膜后入路组术中出血量、热缺血时间、手术时间、术后并发症发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。而经腹膜后入路组患者的术后肠道功能较经腹腔入路组恢复快(P<0.05)。结论:采用经腹膜后入路在机器人辅助腹腔镜下肾部分切除术中可以取得和经腹腔入路同样的手术效果,而且其在术后肠道功能恢复方面具有优势。     

腹腔镜下保留肾单位的肾癌切除术(附15例报告)

目的 探讨腹腔镜下肾癌保留肾单位切除术的方法及治疗效果方法以AJCC2002年肾癌临床和病理分期为标准,选择临床分期为Ⅰ期、病理分期为T1a期(肿瘤最大径≤4 cm)的外生型肾肿瘤15例,分别行腹腔镜下保留肾单位手术.其中经腹腔入路组6例,经后腹膜腔入路组9例.距肿瘤边缘0.5～1.0 cm处进行局部切除. 结果 15例手术中14例完全在腹腔镜下完成,1例因腹腔镜下无法彻底止血而中转开放完成手术.14例腹腔镜手术时间110～200 min,平均160 min;术中失血量60～300 ml,平均160 ml;术后留置引流管时间3～7 d,平均5 d;术后引流液300～600 ml,平均420 ml;术后住院时间4～8 d,平均5 d.术后随访5～8个月,所有肿瘤均无局部或切口、远处复发,患者恢复良好. 结论 腹腔镜下保留肾单位的肾癌切除术损伤小、效果肯定、恢复快,短期随访结果令人满意.     

后腹腔镜下与开放性肾癌根治术治疗局限性肾癌的比较

目的：评价后腹腔镜肾癌根治术治疗局限性肾癌的临床疗效。方法：局限性肾癌患者70例,其中行后腹腔镜下肾癌根治术（后腹腔镜组）30例,开放性。肾癌根治术（开放手术组）40例,2组患者年龄、性别、肿瘤分期大小差异无统计学意义,分析比较两组患者手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、手术并发症及生存率的差异。结果：后腹腔镜组与开放手术相比：手术时间为90～360（110士11．3）min与l00～t50（100±10．5）min,差异有统计学意义（P〉O．05）,后腹腔镜组费时较长;术中出血50～1600（108．6±28．3）ml与70～1100（162．8±40．1）ml（P〈0．05）;术后需用镇痛剂8例与32例（尸〈0．05）、术后进食时间1～2（1．3±0．5）天与3～5（3．1±1．1）天（P〈O．05）、术后住院3～7（4．5士1．3）天与7～13（8．8±1．7）天（P〈O．05）,差异均有统计学意义。术后中位随访时间23个月（5～40个月）,生存率差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论：与开放肾癌根治术相比,后腹腔镜下肾癌根治术出血少、恢复快、术后并发症少,已成为局限性肾癌的首选治疗方法。     

Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy

Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy has gained in popularity as an accepted treatment modality for localized renal cell carcinoma at many centers worldwide. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy may be performed via a transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach. Mostly, the transperitoneal approach is used. Current indications for laparoscopic radical nephrectomy include patients with T(1)-T(3a)N(0)M(0) renal tumors. Herein, transperitoneal as well as retroperitoneal laparoscopic approaches are described. Surgical outcomes and complications from published series are reviewed with comparison to open surgery. Special related concerns as oncologic principles, organ retrieval, lymphadenectomy, and concomitant adrenalectomy are addressed. In conclusion, laparoscopic radical nephrectomy is now established with considerable advantages; decreased postoperative morbidity, decreased analgesic requirements, improved cosmesis, shorter hospital stay and convalescence. Although no long-term follow-up is available, short and intermediate follow-up results confirm the effectiveness of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy.     

Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: A comparative study

Objectives:   To compare perioperative outcome of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches during laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) and to identify selection criteria for each approach.
Methods:   Over a 7-year period, 100 consecutive patients (median age 62 years, range 20–80) underwent LRN for a renal tumor with clinical stage T1a–T3a. The first choice approach was retroperitoneal. The transperitoneal approach was chosen in selected cases based on tumor characteristics. Thirty-three patients underwent the transperitoneal approach, and 67 had the retroperitoneal approach. Perioperative parameters including operative time, blood loss and complications and pathology data were retrospectively analyzed.
Results:   Overall, 33 transperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomies (TLRN) and 67 retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomies (RLRN) were carried out. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of size (5.3 vs 3.0 cm, P  < 0.0001) and clinical T stage (higher in the TLRN group, P  < 0.0001) of the tumors. Intraoperative complications included bradycardia, pneumothorax, renal vein injury, and renal artery injury in the TLRN group, and pneumothorax in the RLRN group. There were no differences in terms of operative time, blood loss and tumor grade between the two groups.
Conclusions:   Retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches yielded excellent surgical outcomes. The transperitoneal approach should be chosen based on tumor size and location to minimize vascular injury.     

腹腔镜手术切除巨大肾上腺肿瘤(附15例报告)

目的:探讨分析行腹腔镜手术切除巨大(直径6cm)肾上腺肿瘤的可行性和安全性。方法:回顾分析我院2008年6月~2013年6月采取经腹腔或腹膜后途径腹腔镜下切除术治疗15例巨大肾上腺肿瘤患者的临床资料。结果:15例患者手术均成功,其中采取经腹腔途径6例,采取经腹膜后途径9例,均无需中转开放手术。平均手术时间136(100~210)min,平均术中出血量134(30~500)ml,术后住院时间平均6.4(5~9)d;出现并发症1例,为下腔静脉损伤;术后病理证实为肾上腺皮质腺瘤8例,肾上腺嗜铬细胞瘤5例,髓样脂肪瘤1例,肾上腺皮质腺癌1例;失访1例,余14例获随访3~63个月,临床症状均消失,术前有高血压者血压均恢复正常,均未发现肿瘤复发或转移。结论:对于经验丰富且具有娴熟腹腔镜手术操作技巧的术者,腹腔镜手术切除巨大肾上腺肿瘤切实可行、安全有效,肿瘤大小并不是决定手术方式的主要因素。     

The experience of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal tumors

We evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal tumors. Between September 1993 and October 2001, 18 patients with renal tumors underwent laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. The mean patient age was 57.1 years ranging from 36 to 78. Clinical stage was T1N0 in all patients. The mean tumor diameter was 4.0 cm ranging from 1.8 to 7.0. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy was performed by using the transperitoneal anterior approach on 11 patients and retroperitoneal approach on 7 patients. The specimen was removed through an extended stab wound after blunt segmentation of renal parenchyma in a specimen bag (LapSac). The mean operative time was 405 (270-550) and 453 (325-635) min for the transperitoneal approach and retroperitoneal approach respectively, and the mean blood loss was 281 (52-700) and 223 (10-850) ml, respectively. There was an intraoperative complication of minor splenic injury in 2 patients receiving the transperitoneal approach, which was conservatively managed. Histopathology revealed renal cell carcinoma in 17 patients and renal oncocytoma in one patient. There was no recurrence with a mean follow-up of 28.9 months. Compared with 13 patients who underwent open radical nephrectomy during the same period, laparoscopic nephrectomy has a longer operative time (424 versus 214 min, p < 0.001), equal blood loss (259 versus 210 ml, p = 0.59), quicker resumption of ambulation (1.8 versus 2.5 days, p = 0.016) and food intake (1.4 versus 2.2 days, p = 0.003), shorter postoperative hospital stay (10.9 versus 18 days, p = 0.0016), and a tendency of less frequent analgesic requirements (1.9 versus 4.7 times, p = 0.09). Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy is a safe and useful surgery for renal tumors providing minimal invasiveness.     

后腹腔入路与经腹入路腹腔镜下肾部分切除术治疗肾癌的临床比较

目的:评价后腹腔入路与经腹入路腹腔镜下肾部分切除术治疗早期肾癌的临床效果。方法:回顾性分析后腹腔入路(17例,A组)与经腹入路(15例,B组)腹腔镜下肾部分切除术治疗早期肾癌患者的临床资料,A组肿瘤大小1.2～3.9(2.6±1.3)cm,B组肿瘤大小1.0～4.0(2.7±1.3)cm。两组术前临床分期均为T_1N_0M_0。比较两种方法的肿瘤大小、手术时间、术中失血量、热缺血时间、标本重量、恢复进食时间、住院时间及手术效果。结果:A组手术均成功,B组1例因肾动脉损伤出血中转开放手术。两组肿瘤大小(2.6±1.3 cm vs 2.7±1.3cm)、术中失血量(302±85mlvs305±90ml)、标本重量(42±31g vs 45±33 g)、热缺血时间(28±9.1 min vs30±9.2min)等方面无明显差异(P0.05);A组在手术时间(175±55 min vs 248±70 min)、恢复进食时间(24±5 h vs 49±11 h)和住院时间(6.5±1.6天vs 8.4±1.9天)均少于B组(P0.05)。结论:后腹腔入路与经腹入路腹腔镜下肾部分切除术均是治疗早期肾癌的一种微创和安全有效的治疗方法,后腹腔入路在手术时间、恢复进食时间及住院时间上少于经腹入路。     

Comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: A single‐center experience of 100 cases

Objectives: To report our experience with the retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches of laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Methods: Between July 2001 and December 2007, 100 patients with RCC underwent laparoscopic radical nephrectomy at our institution for clinically localized RCC. Fifty‐three patients received a retroperitoneal procedure and 47 received a transperitoneal procedure. The perioperative and oncological outcomes of these groups were reviewed retrospectively. Results: Mean follow up was 34 months. No statistically significant difference was found between the two approaches in terms of pathological stage, operative time, need for additional procedures such as adrenalectomy and/or lymph node sampling, estimated blood loss, need for blood transfusions, analgesic requirement, length of hospital stay, or the incidence of minor or major complications. The 5‐year disease‐free survival rate was 90% for both the retroperitoneal and transperitoneal procedures. The 5‐year overall survival rates were 98% and 96%, respectively. Therefore, no significant difference was observed in the long‐term oncological outcome between the two groups. Conclusions: Tumor control and surgical morbidity in laparoscopic radical nephrectomy seem not to be significantly influenced by the approach.     

Prospective randomized comparison of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy

PURPOSE: We report on a prospective randomized comparison of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal tumor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between June 1999 and June 2001, 102 consecutive eligible patients with a computerized tomography identified renal tumor were prospectively randomized to undergo either a transperitoneal (group 1, 50 patients) or retroperitoneal (group 2, 52 patients) laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with intact specimen extraction. Exclusion criteria for the study included body mass index greater than 35 or a history of prior major abdominal surgery in the quadrant of interest. Both groups were matched regarding age (63 versus 65 years, p = 0.69), BMI (29 versus 28, p = 0.89), American Society of Anesthesiologists class (2.7 versus 2.8, p = 0.37), laterality (right side 46% versus 48%, p = 0.85) and mean tumor size (5.3 versus 5.0 cm, p = 0.73). RESULTS: All 102 procedures were technically successful without the need for open conversion. Compared to the transperitoneal approach, the retroperitoneal approach was associated with a shorter time to renal artery control (91 versus 34 minutes, p <0.0001), shorter time to renal vein control (98 versus 45 minutes, p <0.0001) and shorter total operative time (207 versus 150 minutes, p = 0.001). However, the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches were similar in terms of estimated blood loss (180 versus 242 cc, p = 0.13), hospital stay (43 versus 45 hours, p = 0.55), intraoperative complications (10% versus 7.7%, p = 0.30), postoperative complications (20% versus 13.5%, p = 0.14) and postoperative analgesia requirements (27 versus 26 mg MSO4 equivalent p = 0.13). Pathology revealed renal cell carcinoma in 84% and 75% of cases, respectively, with no positive surgical margin in any case. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy can be performed efficiently and effectively with the transperitoneal or the retroperitoneal approach. While renal hilar control and total operative time may be quicker with retroperitoneoscopy, the approaches are similar in terms of other patient outcomes evaluated.