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.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: comparison with conventional open radical nephrectomy

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (HALRN) with those of open radical nephrectomy (ORN) for renal-cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 130 patients with stage T(1) or T(2) RCC with a maximum diameter < 10 cm underwent radical nephrectomy by HALRN (n = 63) or ORN (n = 67). Data from these two groups were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: Although the maximum tumor size treated by HALRN was significantly less than that treated by ORN, there were no significant differences in the remaining features of the two groups. One HALRN was converted to open surgery. The mean operative time for HALRN (273 minutes) was significantly longer than that for ORN (189 minutes), whereas the mean estimated blood loss (315 v 381 mL). There were significant differences in measures of postoperative recovery, including time to walking (1.4 days for HALRN v 2.2 days for ORN), time to oral intake (1.8 v 3.3 days), and time to grant of permission for hospital discharge (7.4 v 10.2 days). Postoperative complications were observed in one and four patients in the HALRN and ORN groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in the recurrence-free and cancer-specific survival rates in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the longer operative time, HALRN represents an effective, safe, and less-invasive treatment option for RCC. If performed for the proper indications, HALRN could achieve cancer control similar to that available with ORN.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal masses >9.5 cm: series comparison with open radical nephrectomy

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HALN) for large renal masses (stage T2, mean size 9.7 cm) and compare outcomes with a similar cohort undergoing open radical nephrectomy (ORN). METHODS: A nonrandomized comparison of 19 consecutive patients who underwent nephrectomy for renal masses >or=7 cm was performed. The HALN group was compared to the ORN group regarding demographic parameters and perioperative data, including blood loss, operating time, narcotic usage, hematocrit change, return to standard oral intake, length of hospital stay, and complications. Data collected prospectively and statistics used 2-tailed t-test analysis. RESULTS: Patients underwent either ORN (mean tumor size 12.3 cm) or HALN (mean tumor size 9.7cm). Tumors up to 14 cm (n = 2) and pT3b, with renal vein thrombosis (n = 2), could be safely excised with HALN. There were no differences between the HALN and ORN groups regarding any demographic parameter. Blood loss, operating time, length of stay, parenteral narcotic use, and time to tolerating regular diet were all less statistically significant in the HALN group as compared to the ORN group (P < 0.05). Tumors >15 cm necessitated ORN. CONCLUSIONS: HALN is technically feasible even for tumors with mean size >9.5 cm. There is a significant advantage to HALN over ORN regarding the intraoperative and postoperative morbidity. Tumors >or=15 cm should, in most cases, be performed with an open approach.     

后腹腔镜与开放性肾根治性切除术治疗T2期肾癌的疗效差异Meta分析

目的 探讨后腹腔镜肾根治性切除术(RPN)与开放性肾根治性切除术(ORN)在T2期肾癌治疗中的疗效差异,评价RPN的临床应用价值.方法 检索国内外数据库中有关RPN与ORN治疗T2期肾癌的文献.提取文献数据、交叉核对并分析.结果 共纳入分析文献11篇、肾癌患者738例.结果显示:与ORN比较,RPN手术时间短、术中出血...     

腹腔镜下T_2大体积肾癌根治术

目的 评价腹腔镜下T_2大体积肾癌根治术的临床应用价值. 方法 回顾性分析30例T_2大体积肾癌腹腔镜肾癌根治切除术(腔镜组)和同期36例开放肾癌根治术(开放组)患者的临床资料.①腔镜组平均年龄(58.05±8.5)岁.CT检查肿瘤直径平均(8.5±2.2)cm.肿瘤位于左肾17例,右肾13例;肾上极4例,中部10例,下极14例,肾门水平2例.经后腹膜途径22例,经腹腔途径8例;肿瘤分期均为T_2M_0N_0.②开放组平均年龄(60.0±9.0)岁.CT检查肿瘤直径平均(8.8±2.1)cm.肿瘤位于左肾20例,右肾16例:肾上极9例,中部10例,下极11例,肾门水平6例.经腰部切口26例,经肋缘下腹腔途径10例.肿瘤分期均为T_2.比较2组手术时间、术中出血、术后恢复及围手术期并发症. 结果 腔镜组手术时间、术中出血量、胃肠功能恢复时间、引流管留置时间、术后下床活动时间、住院天数分别为(176±33)min、(200±80)ml、(1.8±0.5)d、(3.0±1.0)d、(3.0±1.0)d、(6.0±3.0)d,开放组分别为(130±27)min、(380±185)ml、(3.8±0.6)d、(5.0±2.0)d,(5.0±2.0)d、(11.0±4.0)d,2组比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01).围手术期并发症腹腔镜组有出血3例、高碳酸血症3例、肠梗阻1例、肝脏损伤1例,开放手术组出血5例、肠梗阻2例、肝脏损伤1例、切口感染1例,腔镜组和开放组围手术期并发症发生率分别为26.7%和27.8%,2组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).腔镜组1例因肿瘤包绕肾蒂血管,无法游离肾蒂血管,中转开放手术.平均随访(15±2)个月,腔镜组出现肿瘤肺转移2例.开放组出现肝转移2例,肺转移1例.未发生肿瘤切口和穿刺孔种植. 结论 腹腔镜下肾癌根治性切除术治疗T_2大体积肾肿瘤手术安全可行.     

Health-related quality of life after hand-assisted laparoscopic and open radical nephrectomies of renal cell carcinoma

Aim  To compare the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in contemporaneous groups of patients undergoing hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (HALRN) or open radical nephrectomy (ORN) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients and methods  The clinical data of 20 cases receiving hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (the HALRN group) and 51 cases receiving open radical nephrectomy (the ORN group) were analyzed retrospectively and health questionnaires were mailed to these patients at 1 year postoperatively. The two groups were compared in terms of general surgery-related information, tumor characteristics, days to return to work or routine daily activities, and health-related quality-of-life scales. Results  Patients in the HALRN group had significantly less mean incision length (6.25 versus 17.8 cm), faster return to work or routine daily activities (5.3 versus 8.6 weeks), and earlier out-of-bed activity (4.76 versus 6.59 days) compared with those in the ORN group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in HRQOL scales at 1 year between the both groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion  The results showed that hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery is a minimally invasive surgical technique for RCC offering earlier recovery and similar long-term HRQOL compared with open surgery.     

Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy for Renal Tumor: The Washington University Experience

Purpose

We report our experience with laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in 17 consecutive patients with renal tumors.

Materials and Methods

The clinical data on 17 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic radical nephrectomy were reviewed. Of the patients 12 with stage pT1 or pT2 renal cell carcinoma 7 cm. in diameter or smaller undergoing laparoscopic radical nephrectomy were compared to 12 undergoing open radical nephrectomy for stage pT1 or pT2 renal cell carcinoma 6 cm. in diameter or smaller.

Results

Among the 17 patients undergoing laparoscopic radical nephrectomy average operative time was 6.9 hours (range 4.5 to 9) and average estimated blood loss was 105 cc (range 50 to 600). Average weight of the surgical specimen was 402 gm. (range 190 to 1,100). In 12 of 16 patients in whom laparoscopic radical nephrectomy was completed the specimen was removed intact. The patients required an average of 24 mg. morphine sulfate equivalent (range 2 to 220) for postoperative pain. Average hospital stay was 4.5 days (range 3 to 11) and average interval to resume normal activities was 3.5 weeks (range 2 to 4).The 12 patients in the open and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy groups were similar with respect to age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score and interval of surgery. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy required significantly more operative time than open radical nephrectomy (6.9 versus 2.2 hours, respectively). However, the laparoscopic radical nephrectomy group compared to the open radical nephrectomy group had significantly less postoperative pain (24 versus 40 mg. morphine sulfate equivalent required for postoperative analgesia), shorter interval to resuming oral intake (1 versus 3 days), more rapid discharge from the hospital (4.5 versus 8.4 days) and more rapid return to normal activities (3.5 versus 5.1 weeks). The laparoscopic nephrectomy group also fully recovered more rapidly than the open surgical group (5.8 versus 39 weeks). To date, during a 4-year period there was no retroperitoneal recurrence or seeding of a port site.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy is a lengthy and demanding procedure. However, it affords patients with renal cell carcinoma a markedly improved postoperative course while accomplishing the necessary surgical goals.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic vs the open (flank incision) approach to radical nephrectomy

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcome in contemporaneous groups of patients undergoing hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (HALRN) or open (flank) radical nephrectomy (ORN), as many series worldwide have confirmed the feasibility and advantages of LRN in managing renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 44 patients who underwent radical nephrectomy for RCC from 1999 to 2001, 22 by HALRN and 22 by ORN, through an extraperitoneal 11th or 12th rib flank incision. Standard perioperative variables were assessed; a validated questionnaire was also sent to each patient after surgery, allowing them to report their overall satisfaction and the period needed for them to return to both routine and full activities. The outcomes of HALRN and ORN were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum analysis. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between HALRN and ORN in operative duration, length of hospital stay, total narcotic requirement, pain scores at 1 week and 1 month after surgery, and the time to resume routine and full activity, with all variables (except operative duration) lower in the HALRN group. There were no significant differences between the groups in pain at 1-3 days, estimated blood loss or overall satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Compared with ORN, HALRN is associated with lower narcotic requirement, pain scores, a shorter hospital stay and earlier resumption of routine and full activities. However, several obstacles remain, including increased operative duration and the increased equipment costs.     

Single-center comparison of purely laparoscopic,hand-assisted laparoscopic,and open radical nephrectomy in patients at high anesthetic risk

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The laparoscopic approach for management of high-risk patients with renal-cell carcinoma (RCC) may reduce perioperative and postoperative morbidity. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of purely laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN), hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (HALRN), and open radical nephrectomy (ORN) for renal tumors in a population of patients at high risk for perioperative complications. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients undergoing radical nephrectomy for presumed RCC between August 1999 and August 2001 at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and having an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of >/=3 were reviewed. Patients with known metastasis, local invasion, caval thrombi, or additional simultaneous surgical procedures were excluded from analysis. Thirteen patients underwent LRN, eight patients underwent HALRN, and 26 underwent ORN. The patient demographics were similar in the three groups. The groups were compared with regard to intraoperative and postoperative parameters. Statistical analysis was done using chi-square testing for categorical variables and analysis of variance (ANOVA) for continuous variables. Differences in outcomes were examined using ANOVA and Dunnett's T for pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: The ASA 4 patients had significantly longer hospital stays and total hospital costs than the ASA 3 patients. The mean operative time in the ASA 3 patients was similar in the three groups: 2.8 hours, 2.8 hours, and 2.5 hours for the LRN, HALRN, and ORN patients, respectively. Both the LRN patients (22.9 mg of morphine sulfate equivalent) and the HALRN patients (42.1 mg) required less pain medication than the open surgery patients (97.7 mg). When the total hospital costs were compared, LRN was less costly than HALRN ($6089 v $7678; P = 0.57) and open surgery ($6089 v $7694; P = 0.04). The complication rate in the LRN, HALRN, and ORN group was 0%, 25%, and 27%, respectively, although the differences were not statistically different (P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Both LRN and HALRN can be performed safely in patients with significant comorbid conditions. Careful preoperative preparation, intraoperative monitoring, and awareness of laparoscopy-induced oliguria can preclude inadvertent overhydration, hemodilution, and congestive heart failure. Both LRN and HALRN result in less pain medication requirement and faster return to oral intake than ORN, and LRN results in fewer perioperative complications than HALRN or ORN in patients at high perioperative risk. The LRN technique has a 21% lower total cost than both HALRN and ORN.     

Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma at Kobe City General Hospital

Between April 2002 and March 2004, 21 patients with clinical T1-T3a renal cell carcinoma underwent laparoscopic radical nephrectomy at the Kobe City General Hospital. A transperitoneal approach was chosen in 9 patients with clinical T2 stage, tumors more than 5 cm in diameter at the upper pole of the kidney, and posteriorly protruded tumors at the middle portion. Otherwise, a retroperitoneal approach was chosen in 12 patients. The mean (range) operative time for the transperitonal and retroperitoneal approaches was 355 (290-410) min and 342 (275-490) min, respectively. There were no major intraoperative complications. Postoperatively, one patient underwent emergency operation due to the perforation of duodenal ulcer. In the mean follow-up of 15.9 months, lung metastasis was seen in one patient under adjuvant immunotherapy. Significant differences between transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches were seen in mean time to renal artery clipping (170 versus 85 min, p < 0.01), mean blood loss (548 versus 281 ml, p < 0.05) and concurrent adrenalectomy (66.7 versus 16.7%, p < 0.05). Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy is a safe and feasible procedure when suitable approaches are chosen depending on tumor size and location.     

Laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy for large renal tumors: a long-term prospective comparison

PURPOSE: The role of laparoscopy in the management of large renal tumors (more than 7 cm) is not clearly established. We prospectively evaluated the feasibility, safety and long-term results of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for large renal tumors (T2N0M0) and compared the results with those of open radical nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1998 and 2006, 112 patients with clinical stage T2N0M0 renal carcinoma underwent radical nephrectomy at our institution. Clinical data were prospectively collected after categorizing the patients into group 1-41 with laparoscopy and group 2-71 with open surgery. The choice of procedure was nonrandomized and it depended on patient and surgeon preference and experience. RESULTS: The 2 groups were contemporary and comparable in terms of age, body mass index and mean tumor size (9.9 and 10.1 cm, respectively). Concomitant adrenalectomy was performed in 14 patients (34%) in group 1 and in 29 (41%) in group 2. Limited (hilar) lymphadenectomy was performed in 30 patients (73%) in group 1 and in 58 (81%) in group 2. Group 1 patients experienced significantly less blood loss, and had a decreased analgesic requirement, shorter hospital stay and more rapid convalescence, although they required longer operative time (180.8 vs 165.3 minutes, p=0.029). The 2 groups were followed for a similar period (mean 51.4 vs 57.2 months) and there was no difference in 5-year survival data. There were no local or port site recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for clinical stage T2 renal tumors is effective with the advantages of less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, decreased analgesic requirement and rapid recovery compared with open radical nephrectomy. Long-term results are also similar in the 2 groups of patients. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for large tumors is a technically difficult, challenging procedure and it should be attempted by surgeons with significant experience.     

后腹腔镜肾肿瘤根治切除术围手术期细胞免疫的变化

目的探讨后腹腔镜肾癌根治术围手术期细胞免疫的变化,并同传统的开放手术相比较。方法本组53例,后腹腔镜组（LN）27例,开放手术组f0N）26例年龄在25—82岁,平均（51．45±15．39）岁。分别行后腹腔镜肾肿瘤根治切除术（IN）,开放手术肾肿瘤根治切除术（ON）。采用流式细胞学技术,分别对两组手术前、术后1d、术后3d、术后5d T淋巴细胞亚群（CD3、CD4、CD8、CD28、CD4^＋／CD25^＋、CD8^＋／CD28^＋）和NK细胞进行检测,并采用重复测量方差分析进行比较。结果两组手术均获成功,后腹腔镜组平均手术时间为（66．66±10．37）min,而开放手术组为（69．08±11．22）min,两组差异无显著性（P=0．6922）;后腹腔镜组术后住院天数（6．92±0．96）d,明显少于开放手术组（11．42±1．57）d（P=0．018）;后腹腔镜组术中失血（72．03±10．37）ml,明显少于开放手术组（154．42±20．42）ml（P=0．00）。后腹腔镜组术后2人次用止痛剂,开放手术组术后20人次应用度冷丁止痛,两组差异有显著性（χ^2=21．4,P〈0．01）。两组患者的细胞亚群术前与参考值相比,ON组CD3的四个水平间68．8±11．73、62．63±11．62、64．10±13．38、68．92±10．28差异有显著性（P〈0．05）。ON组CD4的四个水平间42．15±7．81、36．39±7．97、38．10±7．58、42．61±8．81差异有显著性（P=0．0061）。ON组术后1、5dCD8（24．80±10．97、23．54±9．86）高于LN组术后1、5dCD8（23．01±6．73、21．42±5．92）,差异有显著性（P〈0．05）。ON组CD4^＋／CD25^＋的四个水平间8．58±3．62、8．71±4．91、10．7±4．56、9．16±4．26无统计学差异,（P〉0．05）。LN组CD4^＋/CD25^＋的四个水平间8．45±3．76、7．34±4．50、8．43±4．61、9．14±4．76无统计学差异（P〉0．05）。ON组术后3dCD4^＋/CD25^＋（10．7±4．56）高于IN组术后3dCD4^＋／CD25^?     

Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy: Initial experience

OBJECTIVES: To report our initial experience of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy for stage T1 renal tumors. METHODS: The clinical data on 22 consecutive patients who had undergone hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy and 22 who had undergone open radical nephrectomy were reviewed. The operation was performed with a hand placed retroperitoneally through a pararectal longitudal 7-7.5 cm incision using a LAP DISC. RESULTS: The total operating time was between 2.3 and 5.8 h (mean: 3.4 h). The estimated blood loss was between 15 and 650 mL (mean: 170 mL). The complication rate was 9% (2/22). No conversions to open procedure occurred. In comparison to open radical nephrectomy, the operating time was similar (3.4 vs 3.9 h) whereas the estimated blood loss was significantly less in this procedure (170 vs 495 mL). During the convalescence period the patients revealed significantly less postoperative pain, shorter intervals to resuming oral intake and more rapid return to normal activities compared to the open radical nephrectomy patients. CONCLUSION: Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy is an effective and safe procedure for T1 renal tumors.     

RETROPERITONEAL LAPAROSCOPIC VERSUS OPEN RADICAL NEPHRECTOMY

PURPOSE: We analyze the retroperitoneal approach to laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in regard to feasibility, safety, morbidity and cancer control, and compare results and outcomes in patients who underwent retroperitoneal laparoscopic or open radical nephrectomy from 1995 to 1998. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The records of 58 consecutive patients with renal cancer who underwent radical nephrectomy from 1995 through 1998 were reviewed. Of the patients 29 underwent open radical nephrectomy (group 1) and 29 underwent retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (group 2). Various parameters were compared and statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: The 2 groups were similar in regard to age, gender and side of the tumor. Operative time was slightly shorter in group 1 (mean 121.4 versus 145 minutes in group 2, p = 0.047). Mean tumor size plus or minus standard deviation was larger in group 1 (5.71 +/- 2.01 versus 4.02 +/- 1.87 cm. in group 2). Group 2 patients had significantly less operative blood loss (mean 100.0 versus 284.5 ml. in group 1, p < 0.005) and used significantly less parenteral pain medication (p < 0.05). Postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in group 1 (9.7 +/- 3.6 versus 4.8 +/- 2.0 days in group 2, p < 0.001), and the complication rate was higher (24 versus 8%, respectively). One group 1 patient died of renal cancer (pT2G2) after 14 months and local recurrence with hepatic metastasis occurred after 9 months in a group 2 patient with a pT3G2 tumor. CONCLUSIONS: Retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy for kidney cancer requires further assessment. It seems to have several advantages over open radical nephrectomy, and to be effective and safe for less than 50 cm. renal tumors but a risk of spillage cannot be ruled out for larger tumors.     

Comparison of hand assisted versus standard laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for suspected renal cell carcinoma

PURPOSE: We compared standard and hand assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for suspected renal cell carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 22 hand assisted and 16 standard laparoscopic radical nephrectomies performed for suspected renal cell carcinoma. Operative and recovery data were collected prospectively and from medical records as part of an institutional review board approved protocol. Patients completed pain, activity and the 12-item short form health related quality of life surveys preoperatively and postoperatively. RESULTS: Although patients undergoing hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy had larger tumors (mean 6.3 versus 4.1 cm., p = 0.009), tended toward greater corrected mean specimen weight (658 versus 482 gm., p = 0.111) and had greater medical co-morbidity (p = 0.0228), mean operative time for hand assisted laparoscopic procedures was significantly shorter (205 versus 270 minutes, p = 0.0004). With experience mean operative time decreased for standard but not for hand assisted laparoscopy (293 to 232 minutes, p = 0.0445, versus 206 to 204, p = 0.6162). Procedure type, surgeon experience and adrenal sparing were the only significant predictors of operative time. There was no difference in the groups in terms of the complication rate, hospital cost or stay, return to activity or overall pain score, or in the difference in preoperative and postoperative 12-item short form scores. Hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy tended to be associated with more abdominal pain early in convalescence and more wound complications but not significantly so. CONCLUSIONS: Hand assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy offers recovery, morbidity and cost that are comparable to those of standard laparoscopy. The benefits of the technique include shorter operative times, no need for specimen morcellation and direct manual control of the operative field. It is particularly useful early in surgeon experience, for large specimens or when patient co-morbidities require a rapid procedure.     

后腹腔镜下解剖性根治性肾切除术168例

目的 介绍后腹腔镜下解剖性根治性肾切除术的手术方法及临床效果. 方法对168例肾癌患者实施后腹腔镜下解剖性根治性.肾切除术.肿瘤位于左肾87例,右肾81例.肿瘤直径2.0～6.9 cm,平均4.7 cm.T1.N0M0 92例,T10N0M0.76例.常规制备后腹腔间隙.按顺序分别进入4个相对无血管解部层面进行分离.第一分离层面位于腰肌前间隙,此层面可以在手术初期快速找到肾蒂;第__二分离层面位于Gerota筋膜前叶与融合筋膜之间;第三分离层面位于肾上腺与肾上极之间或膈肌与肾上腺间隙;第四分离层面位丁Gerota筋膜的锥尖部. 结果 168例手术均成功完成,平均手术时间(138±46)min,平均术中出血量(90±30)ml.恢复饮食和下床活动时间分别为1.3 d和1.2 d.术后平均住院日5.8 d.14例发生腹膜破口,未影响手术进行.18例术后有不同程度肩痈,2 d后自行消失.123例随访6～18个月,平均8个月,均无瘤生存. 结论 后腹腔镜下解削性根治性肾切除术具有解剖层次清楚、术中出血少、术野清晰、疗效确切、并发症少、恢复快等优点,为需要根治性肾切除术的患者提供了更好的选择.     

Hand assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal carcinoma using a new abdominal wall sealing device

PURPOSE: We report our initial experience with a hand assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for patients with renal carcinoma, and compare our results to those of conventional open radical nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The clinical data on 6 consecutive patients who underwent hand assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for stage T1N0M0 renal cell carcinoma were reviewed. We performed hand assisted laparoscopic surgery using the new LAP DISC* abdominal wall sealing device. We compared the results of this procedure with those of conventional open radical nephrectomy in 12 patients with stage T1N0M0 renal cell carcinoma. RESULTS: The hand assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal carcinoma was successfully performed without any major or minor complications in all 6 patients. Mean operation time for the laparoscopic group was significantly longer than that for the open surgery group (303 minutes versus 224 minutes, p = 0.0042). However, no significant difference was observed in mean estimated blood loss for the 2 groups (264 ml. in the laparoscopic group versus 341 ml. in the open surgery group). The frequency of parenteral analgesia postoperatively in the laparoscopic group was significantly lower than that in the open surgery group (16.7% versus 75.0%, p = 0.043). In addition, the laparoscopic group seemed to recover more rapidly than the open surgery group. The abdominal wall sealing device was easy to attach to the abdominal wall, and allowed rapid hand removal and reinsertion. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary results indicate that a hand assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with the abdominal wall sealing device is an effective and safe surgical procedure, and is less invasive than open radical nephrectomy.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy for stage T1 and large stage T2 renal tumors

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Standard laparoscopic nephrectomy (LN) has been shown to be as effective oncologically as open surgery for both stage T1 and stage T2 renal tumors. While much has been published regarding the increasing indications for laparoscopic nephrectomy, there is little in the literature regarding the advantages of hand-assisted laparoscopy (HAL) for the treatment of large (>7-cm) stage T2 renal tumors. To our knowledge, this study is the first to directly compare the results in pathologic stage T1 and stage T2 tumors. Our aim was to assess whether HAL nephrectomy for these larger tumors maintains the same advantages enjoyed by HAL for the smaller ones (<7 cm). PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred HAL renal extirpative procedures were performed over a 3-year period. Of these, 60 were radical nephrectomies for malignant disease, of which 50 tumors were stage T1 and 10 stage T2. Standard HAL nephrectomy was performed through a vertical midline or paramedian incision, and the specimen was sent for histologic examination and tumor staging. We retrospectively analyzed our charts to determine if HAL nephrectomy for T2 tumors was as advantageous as for T1 tumors. We collected data on patient age, ASA score, average tumor size, estimated blood loss, operative time, conversion rate, rate of complications, and length of hospital stay. Follow-up ranged from 4 to 26 months with a mean of 11 months. RESULTS: The mean size was 4.68 and 9.22 cm for stage T1 and T2 tumors, respectively. Intraoperatively, stage T2 tumors were associated with less blood loss than were T1 tumors (105 mL v 190 mL). Operative times were equivalent, at 190 and 185 minutes for stage T1 and T2, respectively. No open conversions were required in the T2 group v four (8.7%) in the T1 group. Three of these open conversions were seen in the first 25 HAL cases. No complications or conversions were seen in the stage T2 patients. Of note, the majority of the operations for stage T2 disease were performed after the learning curve had been surpassed. CONCLUSION: The HAL nephrectomy maintains the benefits associated with standard LN. Stage T1 and T2 tumors are equally amenable to HAL nephrectomy, enjoying the same perioperative advantages. The larger size of the higher-stage tumors does not appear to hinder intact organ removal via a 7-cm hand incision. For the novice laparoscopist, we recommend approaching smaller tumors first with HAL nephrectomy, as there is a learning curve. As surgical expertise with HAL nephrectomy increases, larger tumors (stage T2) can be removed safely and expeditiously with little blood loss and a low complication rate. In the short term, patients with stage T2 cancers appear to enjoy the same disease-free survival rate as those with tumors of lower stage. Longer-term follow-up is clearly needed; however, we anticipate the same excellent results as have been demonstrated by others performing conventional radical LN.     

手助后腹腔镜与标准后腹腔镜无功能积水肾切除术的比较

目的比较手助后腹腔镜与标准后腹腔镜切除无功能积水肾的效果与安全性。方法回顾分析手助后腹腔镜无功能积水肾切除36例（A组）及标准后腹腔镜无功能积水肾切除53例（B组）的临床资料,就两组手术时间、估计出血量、术后下床活动时间、术后住院天数、住院总天数、恢复工作时间、手术治疗费、总住院费以及并发症发生率等指标进行比较。结果A组在手术时间、术中出血量、手术治疗费、总住院费及淋巴漏发生率方面优于B组。而在术后下床活动时间、术后住院天数、恢复工作时间方面,两组没有明显差异。结论手助后腹腔镜切除无功能积水。肾保留了标准后腹腔镜创伤小,痛苦少,恢复快的优点,并能缩短手术时间,减少术中出血和术后并发症,降低花费,值得推广。     

老年肾脏恶性肿瘤后腹腔镜与开放手术的对比研究

目的评价老年肾脏恶性肿瘤患者腹腔镜根治性肾切除术的临床价值。方法回顾性分析老年肾脏恶性肿瘤患者行腹腔镜根治性肾切除21例（A组）及开放性根治性肾切除32例（B组）的临床资料。结果A组在术中出血量、术后卧床时间、住院天数、并发症发生率方面明显优于B组，（P〈0．05）；B组在手术操作时间、住院总费用方面优于A组，（P〈0．05），两组肿瘤复发率差别无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论只要严格掌握手术适应证，积极做好围手术期处理，腹腔镜根治性肾切除术对老年肾脏肿瘤患者仍然适合，且具有术中创伤小、术后恢复快、并发症发生率低等优点。