机器人辅助腹腔镜与腹腔镜肾部分切除术治疗巨大肾血管平滑肌脂肪瘤的疗效比较

目的:比较机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术(RAPN)与腹腔镜肾部分切除术(LPN)对巨大肾血管平滑肌脂肪瘤(RAML)的疗效。方法:回顾性分析浙江省人民医院2014年10月至2020年5月行手术治疗的43例巨大RAML(直径>7cm)患者的临床资料,其中23例行RAPN,20例行LPN。RAPN组男4例,女19例;中位年...     

单中心机器人辅助腹腔镜与腹腔镜肾部分切除术的比较

目的通过对机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术(RAPN)与腹腔镜肾部分切除术(LPN)治疗局限性肾癌的对比研究,探讨RAPN的优势和应用价值。方法回顾性分析西京医院泌尿外科2013年3月至2015年4月顺利完成RAPN(n=61)和LPN(n=32)患者的临床资料,对各组年龄、体质量指数(BMI)、R.E.N.A.L.评分、手术时间、温缺血时间、出血量、住院时间、术后并发症以及术后随访情况等进行统计学分析。结果总体两组间年龄、BMI、肿瘤直径、温缺血时间差异均无统计学意义(P0.05),R.E.N.A.L.评分RAPN组大于LPN组(P0.05),手术时间、出血量、住院时间RAPN组明显优于LPN组(P0.05);肿瘤直径≤4cm组,RAPN组与LPN组年龄、BMI、肿瘤直径、温缺血时间差异均无统计学意义(P0.05),R.E.N.A.L.评分RAPN组大于LPN组(P0.05),手术时间、出血量、住院时间RAPN组明显优于LPN组(P0.05);RAPN组内根据肿瘤直径分为≤4cm组和4cm组,两组间BMI、出血量、住院时间差异均无统计学意义(P0.05),两组间年龄、R.E.N.A.L.评分、手术时间、温缺血时间有显著性差异(P0.05)。RAPN组术后并发肠梗阻2例,急性脑梗死1例,LPN组急性脑梗死1例(P0.05);RAPN组术后2例复发、转移,其中1例死亡,余均无死亡及疾病进展发生。结论 RAPN是治疗局限性肾癌有效、可行的术式,较LPN有一定优势。     

RAPN与LPN治疗孤立肾肾肿瘤的效果比较

目的比较机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术(RAPN)与腹腔镜肾部分切除术(LPN)治疗孤立肾肾肿瘤的效果, 并分析患者术后肾功能和远期生存的影响因素。方法回顾性分析2010年11月至2022年1月在解放军总医院行手术治疗的67例孤立肾肾肿瘤患者的临床资料。男48例, 女19例;年龄(58.6±10.1)岁。按照手术方式不同分为RAPN组(43例)和LPN组(24例)。RAPN组较LPN组的R.E.N.A.L.评分更高[(8.7±1.5)分与(7.9±1.7)分, P=0.042], 两组年龄[(57.4±10.2)岁与(60.9±9.8)岁, P=0.185]、体质量指数(BMI)[(25.7±3.5)kg/m2与(25.1±3.6)kg/m2, P=0.518]及术前血肌酐[(102.9±31.6)μmol/L与(102.3±22.4)μmol/L, P=0.930]差异均无统计学意义。12例术中采用低温处理, 其中RAPN组9例(20.9%), LPN组3例(12.5%, P=0.596)。比较两组手术时间、术中热缺血时间、术中失血量、术后禁食时间、围手术期并发症发生率、术后血肌酐等指...     

机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术治疗小肾癌的优势

目的：通过比较机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术（robot—assistedlaparoscopicpartialnephrectomy,RALPN）、腹腔镜肾部分切除术（1aparoscopicpartialnephrectomy,LPN）和开放性肾部分切除术（openpartialne—phrectomy,OPN）,探讨机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术在治疗小肾癌方面的优势。方法：2009年1月～2013年5月,我科共完成50例小肾癌的肾部分切除术,其中12例RALPN,15例LPN,23例OPN。将三组患者术前基线情况、手术数据和术后GFR变化进行比较。结果：三组患者术前基线情况差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。50例手术均顺利完成,除LPN组1例术后出现尿漏,其余无术后并发症。RALPN和OPN在手术时间（operat—ingtime,OT）、热缺血时间（warmischemictime,wIT）、失血量（estimatedbloodloss,EBL）方面较LPN有优势（P〈O．05）,RALPN在住院时间（hospitalstay,HS）较LPN和OPN占优势（P（O．05）。无论哪种术式,对患侧肾功能均无明显影响（手术前后GFR比较,P〉0．05）。结论：RALPN是一种创伤小、疗效确切、安全可靠的术式。同LPN比较,其优势明显。同OPN相比,也有恢复更快的优势。在不考虑手术费用的前提下,RALPN是治疗小肾癌的优先选择。     

腹腔镜与机器人辅助腹腔镜保留肾单位手术治疗复杂性肾癌的临床疗效比较

目的:比较腹腔镜保留肾单位手术(LPN)与机器人辅助腹腔镜保留肾单位手术(RAPN)在治疗复杂性肾癌中的临床疗效。方法:回顾性分析我院2015年12月~2016年12月收治入院的74例局限性复杂肾癌患者接受LPN或RAPN的临床资料,比较两种术式在中转开放或根治性肾切率、热缺血时间、手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症发生率、住院时间等指标上的不同。结果:LPN组共35例,RAPN组共39例,两组术前影像学评估的R.E.N.A.L.评分差异无统计学意义,RAPN组在中转开放或根治性肾切例数(1vs.6)、热缺血时间[(20.4±6.4)min vs.(27.1±8.6)min]、手术时间[(155.7±48.6)min vs.(178.5±59.7)min]、术中出血量[(49.9±21.2)ml vs.(75.7±37.7)ml]方面显著优于LPN组,而在术后并发症发生率、住院时间上则差异均无统计学意义。结论:在治疗复杂性肾癌方面,LPN和RAPN均是安全有效的方法,RAPN的临床疗效优于LPN。     

机器人辅助腹腔镜与腹腔镜肾部分切除术治疗完全内生型肾肿瘤的疗效比较

目的比较机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术(RAPN)与腹腔镜肾部分切除术(LPN)治疗完全内生型肾肿瘤的疗效。方法回顾性分析2015年1月至2021年6月南昌大学第一附属医院行RAPN或LPN的73例完全内生型肾肿瘤患者的临床资料。RAPN组29例, 男21例, 女8例;年龄(48.6±13.7)岁, 肿瘤最大径(2.9±0.9)cm;左侧13例, 右侧16例;R.E.N.A.L.评分(9.2±1.0)分;术前估算肾小球滤过率(eGFR)(82.6±10.7) ml/(min·1.73 m2)。LPN组44例, 男27例, 女17例;年龄(50.1±12.3)岁;肿瘤最大径(2.9±0.9)cm;左侧24例, 右侧20例;R.E.N.A.L.评分(9.1±1.3)分;术前eGFR(81.7±9.6) ml/(min·1.73 m2)。两组术前一般资料差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。比较两组手术时间、热缺血时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间、术后并发症及术后3个月eGFR变化情况。结果两组均无中转开放及根治手术病例。RAPN组与LPN组手术时间[140(80, 160) min与150...     

机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术的学习曲线

目的:探讨机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术的学习曲线。方法:比较同一外科医生施行的早期20例机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术和最近20例腹腔镜肾部分切除术的围手术期结果。所有手术在2013年5月~2013年8月完成。既往该医生成功施行1 000余例腹腔镜肾部分切除术和300余例机器人辅助腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术。比较2种术式的手术时间、热缺血时间、出血量、切缘阳性率、术后住院时间、围手术期并发症发生率。结果:2组患者术前临床资料和肿瘤病理学结果的比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。2组均无切缘阳性病例。2组手术出血量、术后住院时间、围手术期并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。在机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术的学习曲线中,手术时间和热缺血时间均呈下降趋势。经过早期9例手术后,机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术的平均手术时间即可接近最近20例腹腔镜肾部分切除术的平均手术时间。前9例机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术的平均手术时间是134min,热缺血时间是20min,远远长于后11例机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术平均手术时间107min,热缺血时间14min。结论:一个资深腹腔镜外科医生从腹腔镜肾部分切除术到机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术过渡是一个非常迅速的过程,经过前9例机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术后,行机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术和腹腔镜肾部分切除术的手术时间大致相同。2组热缺血时间、手术出血量、术后住院时间、手术出血量、术后住院时间、围手术期并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。     

从腹腔镜到机器人辅助肾部分切除术的过渡:一个资深腹腔镜外科医生的学习曲线

背景腹腔镜肾部分切除术的高难度和挑战性使许多腹腔镜外科医生采用机器人辅助肾部分切除术治疗肾脏小肿瘤。从腹腔镜肾部分切除术到机器人辅助肾部分切除术的过渡期我们评估一个资深腹腔镜外科医生的学习曲线。方法我们比较同一外科医生施行的早期20例机器人辅助肾部分切除术和最近18例腹腔镜肾部分切除术的围术期结果。所有手术是在2005年4月～2009年7月间完成的。既往该医生成功施行100余例腹腔镜肾部分切除术和100余例机器人辅助手术。2组手术步骤相同,在镜下充分游离肾动静脉后,完整游离肿瘤表面,利用术中超声来界定肿瘤边界,哈巴狗血管阻断钳控制肾动脉,在热缺血状态下切除肿瘤,2-0可吸收线连续缝合肾实质,如果集合系统切开后也予以缝合。学习曲线的定义指能熟练地在较短的手术时间和热缺血时间内完成机器人辅助肾部分切除术的例数。利用散点图显示机器人辅助肾部分切除术的学习曲线,用以比较2种术式的手术时间和热缺血时间。结果 2组患者术前临床资料和肿瘤病理学结果的比较无统计学差异。2组均无切缘阳性病例。2组手术并发症也无统计学差异。在机器人辅助肾部分切除术的学习曲线(图1)中,手术时间和热缺血时间均呈下降趋势。经过早期5例手术后,机器人辅助肾部分切除术的平均手术时间即可接近最近18例腹腔镜肾部分切除术的平均手术时间。前5例机器人辅助肾部分切除术的平均手术时间是242.8 min,远远长于后15例机器人辅助肾部分切除术平均手术时间171.3 min(P=0.011)。结论 一个资深腹腔镜外科医生从腹腔镜到机器人辅助肾部分切除术过渡是一个非常迅速的过程。2组热缺血时间、术中估计出血量和住院时间均无统计学差异。经过前5例机器人辅助肾部分切除术后,一个资深腔镜外科医生行机器人辅助和腹腔镜肾部分切除术的手术时间大致相同。     

后腹腔镜与开放手术行肾部分切除术治疗肾肿瘤的临床效果比较

目的：通过与开放性肾部分切除术（OPN）的临床效果比较,评价后腹腔镜肾部分切除术（LPN）的临床价值。方法：回顾性分析后腹腔镜肾部分切除术（38例,LPN手术组）和同期施行开放性肾部分切除术（46例,OPN手术组）的临床资料,就两组患者一般资料、手术时间、患肾热缺血时间、术中出血量、术后肠道功能恢复时间、术后止痛药用量、术后住院天数、术后血清肌酐升高幅度及术后并发症等指标进行比较。根据数据类型选用x2检验、两样本t检验或Wilcoxon秩和检验,以P〈0．05为差异有统计学意义。结果：两组患者的一般资料差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）,具有可比性。LPN手术组在术中出血量、术后肠道功能恢复时间、术后止痛药用量、术后住院天数方面及术后并发症发生率均优于DPN手术组（P〈0．05）,但前者的患肾热缺血时间明显长于后者（P〈0．05）。LPN手术组和OPN手术组的手术时间及术后血清肌酐升高幅度差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。两组患者送检标本的手术切缘均为阴性,随访18个月均无一例复发。结论：后腹腔镜肾部分切除术治疗肾肿瘤疗效肯定,与传统的开放性肾部分切除术相比,具有创伤小、恢复快、疗效与开放性手术相当等优点,是目前治疗肾肿瘤较理想的手术方法,值得进一步推广。     

后腹腔镜、机器人腹腔镜、机器人后腹腔镜肾部分切除术的比较:单一术者经验

目的比较机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术(robotic-assist laparoscopic partial nephrectomy,RALPN)、机器人辅助后腹腔镜肾部分切除术(robotic-assist retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy,RARPN)及传统后腹腔镜肾部分切除术(retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy,LPN)的疗效及安全性。方法回顾性分析2013年8月～2017年8月单一术者使用da Vinci机器人系统及Storz腹腔镜系统进行372例肾部分切除术的临床资料。其中RALPN 138例,RARPN 46例,LPN 188例。比较3组手术时间、术中失血量、肾动脉热缺血时间、术后并发症发生率及术后肿瘤复发转移率。结果 3组手术时间分别为(122.3±30.9)min、(112.5±28.7)min、(114.8±34.5)min,无统计学差异(F=2.682,P=0.070)。3组肾动脉阻断时间分别为(20.8±5.9)min、(19.4±5.1)min、(23.7±6.8)min(F=13.025,P=0.000),RALPN和RARPN明显短于LPN(P0.05)。3组术中失血量分别为(89.0±76.9)ml、(42.9±40.3)ml、(55.2±86.6)ml(F=9.644,P=0.000),RALPN明显多于RARPN和LPN(P0.05)。LPN组术中输血1例,RALPN及RARPN组均无术中输血。3组术后并发症发生率及术后肿瘤复发转移率无统计学差异(P0.05)。结论机器人辅助腹腔镜手术及机器人辅助后腹腔镜手术均为安全、有效的手术方式。     

Robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy: Superiority over laparoscopic partial nephrectomy

Nephron‐sparing surgery has been proven to positively impact the postoperative quality of life for the treatment of small renal tumors, possibly leading to functional improvements. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy is still one of the most demanding procedures in urological surgery. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy sometimes results in extended warm ischemic time and severe complications, such as open conversion, postoperative hemorrhage and urine leakage. Robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy exploits the advantages offered by the da Vinci Surgical System to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, equipped with 3‐D vision and a better degree in the freedom of surgical instruments. The introduction of the da Vinci Surgical System made nephron‐sparing surgery, specifically robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy, safe with promising results, leading to the shortening of warm ischemic time and a reduction in perioperative complications. Even for complex and challenging tumors, robotic assistance is expected to provide the benefit of minimally‐invasive surgery with safe and satisfactory renal function. Warm ischemic time is the modifiable factor during robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy to affect postoperative kidney function. We analyzed the predictive factors for extended warm ischemic time from our robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy series. The surface area of the tumor attached to the kidney parenchyma was shown to significantly affect the extended warm ischemic time during robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy. In cases with tumor‐attached surface area more than 15 cm², we should consider switching robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy to open partial nephrectomy under cold ischemia if it is imperative. In Japan, a nationwide prospective study has been carried out to show the superiority of robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in improving warm ischemic time and complications. By facilitating robotic technology, robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy will be more frequently carried out as a safe, effective and minimally‐invasive nephron‐sparing surgery procedure.     

Robot‐assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: A propensity score‐matched comparative analysis of surgical outcomes and preserved renal parenchymal volume

Objectives

To compare surgical outcomes, including renal function and the preserved renal parenchymal volume, between robot‐assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy using propensity score‐matched analyses.

Methods

In total, 253 patients, with a normal contralateral kidney, who underwent laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (n = 131) or robot‐assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (n = 122) with renal arterial clamping between 2010 and 2015, were included. Patients’ background and tumor factors were adjusted by propensity score matching. Surgical outcomes, including postoperative renal function, complications, warm ischemia time and preserved renal parenchymal volume, evaluated by volumetric analysis, were compared between the surgical procedures.

Results

After matching, 64 patients were assigned to each group. The mean age was 56–57 years, and the mean tumor size was 22 mm. Approximately 50% of patients had low complexity tumors (RENAL nephrometry score 4–7). The incidence rate of acute kidney failure was significantly lower in the robot‐assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (11%) than laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (23%) group (P = 0.049), and warm ischemia time shorter in the robot‐assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (17 min) than laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (25 min) group (P < 0.0001). The preservation rate of renal function, measured by the estimated glomerular filtration rate, at 6 months post‐surgery was 96% for robot‐assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and 90% for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (P < 0.0001). The preserved renal parenchymal volume was higher for robot‐assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (89%) than laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (77%; P < 0.0001). The rate of perioperative complications, surgical margin status and length of hospital stay were equivalent for both techniques.

Conclusions

Robot‐assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy allows to achieve better preservation of renal function and parenchymal volume than laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.     

机器人辅助与后腹腔镜肾部分切除术治疗复杂性肾肿瘤的临床效果比较

目的:观察机器人辅助与后腹腔镜肾部分切除术治疗复杂性肾肿瘤的临床应用效果。方法:将64例复杂性肾肿瘤患者根据治疗方法分为对照组与观察组,每组32例。对照组行后腹腔镜肾部分切除术,观察组行机器人辅助肾部分切除术。比较两组手术时间、热缺血时间、术中出血量,术后并发症情况、术后病理检查结果及随访结果。结果:观察组手术时间、热缺血时间短于对照组,术中出血量少于对照组(P<0.05);两组住院时间及术后迟发性出血、急性肾衰竭、尿瘘、肾功能减退等并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);两组术后病理检查结果差异亦无统计学意义(P>0.05)。随访结果显示,观察组复发率低于对照组(P<0.05);术后1个月,两组肌酐水平均高于术前,观察组高于对照组(P<0.05)。结论:机器人辅助肾部分切除术可能利于降低术后复发率、尽可能保留术后患肾肾单位及肾功能。     

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: early unclamping technique

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is emerging as a viable minimally invasive surgical technique for small renal tumors. The warm ischemia time (WIT) during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy has been reduced using an early unclamping (EU) technique. We present our technique of EU technique in RAPN. From November 2009 to June 2010, 12 consecutive RAPNs were performed by a single surgeon (A.W.) using EU technique. The median operative time was 227 minutes (176-315); median WIT, 16 minutes (11-25). Median estimated blood loss was 150 mL (50-500) and length of stay 2 days. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. RAPN using EU technique is a safe and feasible option in experienced hands, allowing for a shorter WIT without increasing blood loss. This approach requires a highly skilled bedside assistant who is imminently familiar with the robotic system and advanced laparoscopic techniques.     

Necessity of ureteral catheter during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) is a relatively recently introduced method of treating renal tumors and, as such, surgical technique is evolving. In open series urinary fistula formation represents a common postoperative complication. In the laparoscopic approach investigators have advocated the placement of a ureteral catheter with retrograde dye injection to visualize caliceal entry to aid in closure. In this study we assessed the necessity of ureteral catheter placement during LPN in decreasing urinary leakage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From February 1998 until November 2002 laparoscopic partial nephrectomy was performed in 103 patients with renal tumors. The patients were assessed retrospectively and divided into 2 groups according to placement (group 1) or no placement (group 2) of an external ureteral catheter. Group 1 included 54 patients (mean age +/- SD 57.4 +/- 13.4 years) and group 2 included 49 patients (mean age +/- SD 57.5 +/- 10.9). Intraoperative and postoperative parameters including blood loss, operative time, ischemia time, mass size, complications and hospital stay were reviewed and compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: There were no differences between the 2 groups in mean estimated blood loss (group 1, 394.7 cc vs group 2, 291.5 cc, p = 0.07), postoperative serum creatinine (group 1, 0.95 mg/dl vs group 2, 0.89 mg/dl, p = 0.12), requirement for pain medication (group 1, 8.9 mg vs group 2, 4.9 mg morphine equivalents, p = 0.12), hospital stay (group 1, 3.1 vs group 2, 2.9, p = 0.29) and warm ischemia time (group 1, 28 minutes vs group 2, 26.5 minutes, p = 0.18). Mean total operative time was significantly longer for group 1 compared to group 2 (191.1 vs 149.4 minutes, respectively, p = 0.001). Postoperative urinary leakage requiring prolonged drainage occurred in 1 patient in group 1 and 1 in group 2. In both cases caliceal entry was identified and sutured. CONCLUSIONS: With experience caliceal entry can be identified without the need for a ureteral catheter in patients undergoing LPN for a tumor less than 4.5 cm. Urinary fistula may occur despite caliceal entry and repair. A ureteral catheter may not decrease urinary fistula in patients undergoing LPN.     

Simultaneous "cut and suture": a novel technique for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy without vascular clamping

Loss of renal units due to warm ischemia is of great concern in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). We describe a technique for performing LPN without vascular clamping with optimal results and minimal blood loss, suitable for small and superficial renal masses.     

Initial experience in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumor with clamping of renal vessels

PURPOSE: To describe our initial experience with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) with clamping of the renal vessels before tumor excision and suturing of the renal parenchyma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July 2001 and April 2002, 19 consecutive patients underwent transperitoneal LPN in our institution, 14 for tumors <4 cm with suspicion of renal-cell cancer and 5 for suspicion of angiomyolipoma at CT with one tumor confirmed histopathologically by percutaneous needle biopsy. We divided these patients into the first 10 cases (Group 1) and the last 9 cases (Group 2). One patient had end-stage renal disease but was not on dialysis; the remaining patients had elective partial nephrectomy. Initially, a ureteral catheter was placed. The partial nephrectomy was performed with clamping of the renal vessels, so that the tumor was excised with cold scissors. Intracorporeal cooling of the kidney was achieved by a ureteral catheter connected to a 4 degrees C solution flowing to the renal pelvis during the whole procedure until the clamps were released. Intracorporeal free-hand suturing was exclusively used to close the collecting system (when opened) and to approximate the renal parenchyma. RESULTS: All procedures were completed laparoscopically. The mean renal warm ischemia time was 28.5+/-7 minutes (range 15-47 minutes). The mean laparoscopic operating time was 125+/-37 minutes (range 90-390 minutes). The mean intraoperative blood loss was 290+/-276 mL (range 25-1200 mL). Two patients required blood transfusion, and four had complications. There was immediate deterioration in renal function (creatinine 1.42+/-0.56 mg/dL), but improvement was seen at 1 month (1.17+/-0.34 mg/dL). There were no statistically significant differences in operative features and outcomes in Groups 1 and 2, but there were improvements in the mean operating time by 30 minutes, the mean intraoperative blood loss by 113 mL without any transfusion, and the mean renal warm ischemia time by 6 minutes. There was only one patient in Group 2 with a complication. The surgical margin was negative for tumor for all patients. Postoperative pathology examination showed renal-cell cancer in 11 patients (pT1), oncocytoma in 3 patients, and angiomyolipoma in 5 patients. The mean tumor grade was 2. The mean tumor size was 25.8+/-11.6 mm with a mean tumor-free margin of 2.6+/-2.4 mm. The median follow-up is 3 months, so oncologic outcome cannot be assessed. CONCLUSION: The technique of LPN can be standardized and should be proposed for small tumors when they are not invading the hilum. Clamping the renal pedicle allows better vision for more accurate tumor excision with a safety margin and hemostatic suturing of the parenchymal defect, resulting in less blood loss and shorter operative time, parameters that improve with experience.     

腹腔镜与开放性肾部分切除术治疗小肾癌的安全性与疗效分析

目的 比较腹腔镜与开放性肾部分切除术治疗小肾癌的安全性与近期治疗效果.方法 2004年1月至2009年3月T1aN0M0的肾癌患者110例,均接受肾部分切除术,其中腹腔镜肾部分切除术(LPN)52例(LPN组),开放性肾部分切除术(OPN)58例(OPN组).评估患者的手术时间、肾动脉阻断时间、手术并发症、术后恢复和手术切缘情况.结果 LPN组和OPN组的平均手术时间分别为177.8和126.7 min(P<0.01),肾动脉阻断时间分别为28.3和21.9 min(P>0.05);两组各有2例(3.8%)和1例(1.7%)需要输血(P>0.05);手术前后肌苷变化两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);两组分别有6例(11.5%)和8例(13.8%)需缝合集合系统(P>0.05);分别有6例(11.5%)和8例(13.8%)术后出现血尿(P>0.05);未出现尿瘘或其他严重的并发症.患者的手术切缘均为阴性.两组患者平均术后住院天数差异有统计学意义(P<0.01).结论 LPN的安全性和治疗效果与OPN相同,但术后恢复快于OPN.对于经选择的患者和有丰富经验的医师,可以考虑将LPN作为治疗T1aN0M0肾癌的首选术式.     

肾周脂肪厚度对预测腹腔镜肾部分切除术手术相关因素价值的研究

目的 探讨肾周脂肪厚度在预测腹腔镜下肾部分切除术(1 aparoscopic partial ne-phrectomy,LPN)围手术期相关因素中的价值.方法 回顾性分析2013年6月至2014年8月由本中心同一位外科医生完成的LPN 90例,结合其他相关资料(肿瘤大小、R.E.N.E.L.评分等)统计分析术前影像学检查测量的肾周脂肪厚度与围手术期参数(手术时间、热缺血时间、术后30 d并发症情况)的相关性.结果 90例中术前影像学资料完善的共84例,平均手术时间为(143.93±60.11)min,平均热缺血时间为(24.44±7.68)min.84例中23例(27.4%)在术后30 d内出现了不同程度的并发症,其中ClaveinⅠ~Ⅱ级并发症共17例(20.7%),6例(6.7%)为Ⅲ~Ⅳ级并发症,无Ⅴ级并发症发生.肾周脂肪厚度于不同手术时间组存在显著性差异(P=0.003);广义线性模型回归分析,肾周脂肪厚度是手术时间的独立影响因素(P<0.001),而非LPN热缺血时间以及术后并发症发生的独立影响因素.结论 肾周脂肪厚度对于预测LPN手术时间具有价值,对热缺血时间、术后30 d并发症发生率及其严重程度的预测尚需进一步研究.