中国肾肿瘤腹腔镜及机器人肾部分切除术专家共识

肾细胞癌是常见泌尿系统肿瘤,肾部分切除术(partial nephrectomy,PN)是治疗肾癌的主要方法之一.中国抗癌协会泌尿男生殖系肿瘤专业委员会微创学组根据中国腹腔镜及机器人肾部分切除术的应用现状,结合国内外最新的理论与实践,经专家广泛讨论,制定中国肾肿瘤腹腔镜及机器人肾部分切除术专家共识,以期给PN在肾肿瘤患...     

腹腔镜超声在机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术中的应用价值

目的:研究腹腔镜超声(laparoscopic ultrasonography,LUS)在机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术(robot assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy,RALPN)中的应用价值。方法:回顾分析2012年4月至2013年3月为41例患者行RALPN的临床资料,其中LUS引导23例(实验组),无LUS引导18例(对照组),手术均由同一泌尿外科医师施术。两组患者术前分期均为T1N0M0。实验组术前肿瘤直径1.5~5.3 cm,平均(3.19±1.12)cm;对照组1.5~6.1 cm,平均(3.34±1.30)cm。对比分析两组手术时间、热缺血时间、术中出血量、术后第3天血肌酐值、术后并发症等指标。结果:两组患者年龄、术前肿瘤最大径、BMI、术中出血量、术后住院时间、术后切缘阳性率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。手术时间[(223.8±42.1)min vs.(203.4±56.6)min]、肾脏热缺血时间[(18.9±7.7)min vs.(31.2±7.1)min]、术后第3天血肌酐值≥110μmol/L(参考值上限)发生率(17.39%vs.50.00%)差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:LUS实时动态的扫描,可准确提供肿瘤的位置、大小、范围、深度及血供情况,为手术的安全性、减少肿瘤残留与复发、降低术后并发症发生率提供了保障,短期疗效较好,但其长期疗效尚需大样本病例随访观察进一步分析研究。     

腹膜后腹腔镜免缝合肾部分切除术的学习曲线

目的:探讨腹膜后腹腔镜免缝合肾部分切除术的学习曲线.方法:回顾分析2020年12月至2021年4月由同一术者及团队连续完成的47例行腹膜后腹腔镜免缝合肾部分切除术的肾肿瘤患者的临床资料,入选病例按手术顺序分为A组(1～12例)、B组(13～24例)、C组(25～36例)与D组(37～47例)四组.对比分析四组一般资料、...     

机器人辅助与腹腔镜肾部分切除术远期生存比较

目的:比较经机器人辅助肾部分切除术(RAPN)与经腹腔镜下肾部分切除术(LPN)的T_1N_0M_0肾癌患者的远期生存。方法:收集2014年1月—2016年8月郑州大学第一附属医院216例经RAPN或LPN治疗的单侧T_1N_0M_0(≤7 cm)肾肿瘤患者的临床、病理以及生存资料。依据手术方式不同分为RAPN组(n=90)与LPN组(n=126)。比较两组患者的临床病理特征以及生存差异,同时研究预后的影响因素。结果:216例肾癌患者的中位随访时间为4.9(2.5～6.4)年。RAPN组患者的年龄、BMI值和肿瘤平均直径均高于LPN组(P0.05),两组总生存率、肿瘤特异生存率及无病生存率比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05),多因素回归分析显示高龄和高Fuhrman分级是肿瘤特异性死亡的独立危险因素(P0.05)。结论:RAPN患者的远期生存良好且与LPN的远期生存无明显差异。     

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。     

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...     

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。     

机器人辅助腹腔镜保留肾单位肾部分切除术（附6例报告）

目的：总结我院机器人辅助腹腔镜保留肾单位肾部分切除术的手术经验,探讨此术式疗效及安全性。方法：2007年12月～2008年10月,对6例肾肿瘤患者行达·芬奇机器人（Da Vinci机器人手术系统）辅助腹腔镜保留肾单位肾部分切除术,将相关资料与国外此手术初期资料及我院同组人员腹腔镜保留肾单位肾部分切除术的资料进行比较分析。结果：6例患者中,1例改行开放性保留肾单位肾部分切除术,其余5例手术均成功。手术时间（不包括术前机器人准备时间）130（110～160）min,肾动脉阻断时间40（33～50）min,术中出血量188（100380）ml。术后7天下床活动,3天拔除引流管,术后住院9（8～12）天,肾功能均在正常范围。术后病理检查提示为肾透明细胞癌5例,乳头状癌1例,无一例切缘阳性。随访4～15个月,全部患者未见局部病灶残留、局部复发、切口种植及远处转移。结论：机器人辅助腹腔镜保留肾单位肾部分切除术是一种创伤小、安全可靠、疗效确切的手术方法。随着操作熟练程度的提高,此术式优势将更加明显。     

Transition from laparoscopic to robotic partial nephrectomy: the learning curve for an experienced laparoscopic surgeon

Background:

The complexity of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) has prompted many laparoscopic surgeons to adopt robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) for the treatment of small renal masses. We assessed the learning curve for an experienced laparoscopic surgeon during the transition from LPN to RPN.

Methods:

We compared perioperative outcomes of the first 20 patients who underwent RPN to the last 18 patients who underwent LPN by the same surgeon (MAP). Surgical technique was consistent across platforms. The learning curve was defined as the number of cases required to consistently perform RPN with shorter average operative times (OT) and warm ischemia times (WIT), as compared to the last 18 LPN. A line of best fit aided graphical interpretation of the learning curve on a scatter diagram of OT versus procedure date.

Results:

The 2 groups had comparable preoperative demographics and tumor histopathology. No patients in either group had a positive surgical margin. There was a downward trend in both OT and WIT during the RPN learning curve. After the first 5 RPN cases, the average OT reached the average OT of the last 18 LPN cases. The average OT of the first 5 RPN patients was 242.8 minutes, compared with the average OT of the last 15 RPN patients of 171.3 minutes (P=0.011).

Conclusion:

The transition from LPN to RPN is rapid in an experienced laparoscopic surgeon. There were no significant differences in WIT, estimated blood loss, or length of hospital stay between LPN and RPN. RPN achieved a similar OT as LPN after 5 procedures.     

Robotic Partial Nephrectomy with Sliding-Clip Renorrhaphy: Technique and Outcomes

Background

Robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) is emerging as an alternative to traditional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). Despite the potential advantages of the robotic approach, renorrhaphy remains a challenging portion of the procedure.

Objective

To present our technique and outcomes for RPN, including sliding-clip renorrhaphy.

Design, setting, and participants

Between 2007 and 2008, 50 patients underwent RPN performed by a single attending surgeon.

Surgical procedure

In this paper, we describe our technique for RPN, including a sliding-clip renorrhaphy, which is distinguished by the use of Weck Hem-O-Lock clips that are slid into place under complete control of the surgeon seated at the console and secured with a LapraTy clip. For the first 13 procedures, traditional tied-suture or assistant-placed clip closures were performed; sliding-clip renorrhaphy was performed in the remaining 37 cases.

Results and limitations

Mean tumor size was 2.5 cm. Mean operative time was 145.3 min, and mean overall warm ischemia time was 17.8 min. Mean estimated blood loss was 140.3 ml. The learning curve for overall operative time was 19 cases; the learning curve for portions of the case performed under warm ischemia (including tumor resection and renorrhaphy) was 26 cases. The introduction of a sliding-clip renorrhaphy produced significant reductions in overall operative time and warm ischemia time, while blood loss and hospital stay remained stable over our experience. Limitations of RPN include cost and increased reliance on the bedside assistant.

Conclusions

Sliding-clip renorrhaphy provides an efficient and effective repair that is under nearly complete control of the surgeon. This technique appears to contribute to significantly shorter overall operative times and, perhaps most critically, to shorter warm ischemia times. The learning curve for RPN using this technique appears to be foreshortened compared with LPN.     

Laparoscopic and Open Partial Nephrectomy: A Matched-Pair Comparison of 200 Patients

Background

Laparoscopy is currently challenging the role of the open approach for nephron-sparing surgery (NSS), yet comparative studies on this issue are scant.

Objective

To compare surgical, oncologic, and functional outcomes after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN).

Design, setting, and participants

We undertook matched-pair (age, sex, tumour size) analysis of patients who underwent elective NSS for renal masses either by laparoscopic (Klagenfurt) or open (Vienna) access.

Measurements

Surgical data, complications, histologic and oncologic data, and short- and long-term renal function of the open and laparoscopic groups were compared.

Results and limitations

In total, 200 patients matched for age, sex, and tumour size entered the study after either LPN or OPN and were followed for a mean of 3.6 yr. Surgical, ischemia, and hospitalisation times were shorter in the LPN group (p < 0.001). Blood loss and complication rates were comparable in both groups. Malignant tumours were pT1 stage renal-cell cancer only in both groups. The positive surgical margin (PSM) rate was 4% after LPN and 2% after OPN (p = 0.5); positive margins were not a risk factor for disease recurrence. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-yr local recurrence-free survival (RFS) were 97% after LPN and 98% after OPN (p = 0.8); the respective numbers for distant free survival were 99% and 96% (p = 0.2). Five-year overall survival (OS) for patients with pT1 stage renal cell carcinoma (RCC) was 96% after LPN and 85% after OPN. The decline in glomerular filtration rate at the last available follow-up (LPN: 10.9%; OPN: 10.6%) was similar in both groups (p = 0.8). We recognise the retrospective nature, limited follow-up, and sample size as shortcomings of this study.

Conclusions

In experienced hands, LPN provides similar results compared to open surgery. PSM rates were comparable after LPN and OPN. Current experience questions the indication of secondary nephrectomy in these patients.     

Impact of the Learning Curve on Perioperative Outcomes in Patients Who Underwent Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for Parenchymal Renal Tumours

Background

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is an emerging, minimally invasive technique to treat patients with small renal masses.

Objective

To evaluate the impact of the learning curve on perioperative outcomes such as operative times and warm ischaemia times (WIT), blood loss, overall complications, and renal function impairment in patients who underwent RAPN.

Design, setting, and participants

We collected prospectively the clinical and pathologic records of 62 consecutive patients who underwent RAPN between September 2006 and November 2009 for renal tumours at a nonacademic teaching institution by a single surgeon with extensive prior robotic experience.

Interventions

The surgeon used transperitoneal RAPN with excision of an adequate rim of healthy peritumour renal parenchyma.

Measurements

Perioperative parameters, pathologic outcome, and short-term outcomes for renal function were recorded. The effects of the learning curve on the previous reported perioperative and functional outcomes was studied.

Results and limitations

The mean pathologic tumour size was 2.8 ± 1.3 cm. A pelvicaliceal repair was needed in 33 cases (53%). The mean console time was 91 ± 33 min (range: 52–180), with a mean WIT of 20 ± 7 min (range: 9–40). Warm ischaemia (<20 min) and console times were optimised after the first 30 (p < 0.001) and 20 cases (p < 0.001), respectively. Pathologic results yielded a positive surgical margin (PSM) rate of 2%. Mean creatinine level changed from a baseline value of 1.02 ± 0.38 mg/dl to 1.1 ± 0.7 mg/dl 3 mo after surgery. Estimated glomerular filtration rate changed from a baseline value of 81.17 ± 29 to 80.5 ± 29 (millilitres per minute per 1.73 m²) 3 mo postoperatively.

Conclusions

RAPN is a viable option for nephron-sparing surgery in patients with renal carcinoma. Specifically, in the hands of a surgeon with extensive robotic experience, RAPN requires a short learning curve to reach WIT <20 min, console times <100 min, limited blood loss, and acceptable overall complication rates.     

Laparoscopic versus Open Partial Nephrectomy: Analysis of the Current Literature

Objectives

To critically review the current scientific evidence about open partial nephrectomy (OPN) and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) to define the current role of these techniques in the treatment of renal tumours.

Methods

PubMed and Medline were searched for reports about OPN and LPN that were published from 1990 to 2007 and the most relevant papers were reviewed.

Results

OPN is an established curative approach for the treatment of small renal tumours. LPN is challenging and the technique is still under development. The intermediate-term oncologic and functional outcomes of LPN are similar to those of OPN in experienced centres. However, the ischaemia time is longer in laparoscopy and a long learning curve is needed to decrease the risk of complications. In the first phase of a surgeon's experience with LPN, a careful case selection based on the tumour growth pattern is required.

Conclusion

OPN is today the first treatment option for small renal tumours. LPN is technically challenging, but has been shown to achieve similar intermediate-term cancer cure and renal function results in centres with advanced laparoscopic expertise. Larger series with longer follow-up and prospective randomised studies are needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of LPN.     

腹腔镜前列腺根治性切除术的学习曲线

目的探讨腹腔镜前列腺根治性切除术的学习曲线。方法回顾分析2004年1月～2011年5月我院由同一医师完成的180例腹腔镜前列腺根治性切除术的临床资料。按手术先后顺序分为4组（A、B、C、D组）,每组45例,比较各组手术时间、出血量、切缘阳性率、输血率、术后住院时间、并发症发生率。结果中转开放率为1.1%（2/180）,均发生在A组。A组手术时间为（284.5±67.7）min,显著长于B组（213.7±42.6）min（q=9.491,P〈0.05）,C组（229.7±40.9）min（q=7.346,P〈0.05）和D组（235.4±42.6）min（q=6.582,P〈0.05）。输血率由A组的18.6%（8/43）,下降至B组4.4%（2/45）,C组6.7%（3/45）和D组2.2%（1/45）（χ2=9.637,P=0.022）。A组术后住院时间中位数12 d（5～60 d）,显著长于B组9 d（5～36 d）,C组10 d（6～60 d）和D组10 d（4～38 d）（Z值分别为-2.600,-1.993,-2.112,P值分别为0.009,0.046,0.035）。A组出血量为中位数300 ml（100～3000 ml）,显著多于B组200 ml（50～1200 ml）（Z=-3.050,P=0.002）和D组150 ml（30～700 ml）（Z=-4.060,P=0.001）。4组切缘阳性率及并发症发生率并无显著差异（χ2=0.907,P=0.824;χ2=0.270,P=0.966）。结论腹腔镜前列腺根治性切除术的学习曲线大致为45例。     

R-LESS Partial Nephrectomy Trifecta Outcome Is Inferior to Multiport Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: Comparative Analysis

Background

Trifecta achievement in partial nephrectomy (PN) is defined as the combination of warm ischemia time ≤20 min, negative surgical margins, and no surgical complications.

Objective

To compare trifecta achievement between robotic, laparoendoscopic, single-site (R-LESS) PN and multiport robotic PN (RPN).

Design, setting, and participants

Data from 167 patients who underwent RPN from 2006 to 2012 were retrospectively analyzed.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Primary outcome measurement was trifecta achievement; secondary outcome was the perioperative and postoperative comparison between groups. The measurements were estimated and analyzed with SPSS v.18 using univariable, multivariable, and subgroup analyses.

Results and limitations

Eighty-nine patients were treated with RPN and 78 were treated with R-LESS PN. Baseline characteristics of both groups were similar. Trifecta was achieved in 38 patients (42.7%) in the multiport RPN group and 20 patients (25.6%) in the R-LESS PN group (p = 0.021). Patients in the R-LESS PN group had longer mean operative time, warm ischemia time, and increased estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) percentage change. No significant differences were found between the two groups in days of hospitalization, blood loss, postoperative eGFR, positive surgical margins, and surgical complications. Patients with increased PADUA and RENAL scores, infiltration of the collecting system, and renal sinus involvement had an increased probability of not achieving the trifecta. In regression analysis, the type of procedure and the tumor size could predict trifecta accomplishment (p = 0.019 and 0.043, respectively). The retrospective study, the low number of series, and the controversial definition of trifecta were the main limitations.

Conclusions

The trifecta was achieved in significantly more patients who underwent multiport RPN than those who underwent R-LESS PN. R-LESS PN could be an alternative option for patients with decreased tumor size, low PADUA and RENAL scores, and without renal sinus or collecting system involvement.

Patient summary

In this study, we looked at the outcomes of patients who had undergone robotic partial nephrectomy. We found that conventional robotic partial nephrectomy is superior to R-LESS partial nephrectomy with regard to the accomplishment of negative margins, reduced warm ischemia time, and minimal surgical complications.     

Variability in Partial Nephrectomy Outcomes: Does Your Surgeon Matter?

Background

Understanding physician-level discrepancies is increasingly a target of US healthcare reform for the delivery of quality-focused patient care.