非阻断肾蒂的腹腔镜肾部分切除术

目的探讨非阻断肾蒂的腹腔镜肾部分切除术的手术技巧与临床效果。方法回顾性分析2006年6月至2008年12月间24例肾肿瘤行肾部分切除术的治疗效果,术中均采用大圆针贯穿缝扎肾实质的方法阻断肿瘤部分肾实质的血流,将肿瘤切除后,腹腔镜下缝扎包埋创面,记录手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症及术后恢复情况。结果 24例腹腔镜肾部分切除手术均获成功。手术时间75～160分钟,平均95分钟。术中出血量20～320 ml,平均115 ml。术后住院时间6～12天,平均7.5天。术中术后未出现明显并发症。术后随访12～42个月,剩余肾脏功能良好,未见肿瘤复发。结论采用肾实质贯穿缝合的方法行肾部分切除术,可不需阻断肾蒂,术中出血量少,可避免肾脏热缺血对肾功能的影响。     

后腹腔镜肾部分切除术治疗局限性肾肿瘤的临床价值

目的:对比分析后腹腔镜肾部分切除术(RLPN)与开放肾部分切除术(OPN)治疗局限肾肿瘤的临床疗效。方法:43例肾肿瘤患者随机分为两组:其中19例行RLPN,24例行OPN。观察手术时间、术中肾热缺血时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、术后胃肠功能恢复时间、术后住院时间。结果:RLPN组患者的手术时间及术中肾缺血时间均明显较OPN组长,而术中出血量则明显少于OPN组,且胃肠恢复时间及住院时间均明显较OPN组少,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:后腹腔镜下肾部分切除术治疗局限肾肿瘤疗效确切,出血量及并发症少,微创优势明显,是替代开放手术治疗局限肾肿瘤的有效方法。     

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)。     

预置输尿管导管联合“2+1”缝合法在中央型肾肿瘤腹腔镜肾部分切除术中的应用

目的:探讨术前留置输尿管导管联合术中"2+1"缝合法在中央型肾肿瘤腹腔镜下肾部分切除术中的可行性及价值。方法:收集我院自2016年1～6月共15例中央型肾肿瘤患者的临床资料,其中男11例,女4例;平均年龄57.1(38～72)岁;肿瘤平均直径2.7(1.2～4.5)cm;腹侧3例,背侧12例,均为单发肿瘤。统计分析手术时间、热缺血时间、术中出血量、术后并发症等临床资料。结果:15例中央型肾肿瘤患者均顺利完成腹腔镜下肾部分切除术,术后无出血、尿瘘等并发症发生。平均手术时间(105.3±18.6)min,平均热缺血时间(22.9±3.4)min,平均术中出血量(103.3±22.6)ml,平均拔管时间(3.5±0.7)d,平均术后住院时间(7.0±1.0)d。结论:中央型肾肿瘤腹腔镜下肾部分切除术通过术前预置输尿管导管,术中采用"2+1"缝合的方法可以明显缩短术中热缺血时间,减少术后出血、尿瘘的风险,具有临床实际应用的可行性及推广价值。     

高选择肾动脉阻断腹腔镜肾脏部分切除术治疗中央型肾肿瘤

目的:探讨中央型肾肿瘤腹腔镜肾部分切除术的手术技巧及结果。方法 :2006年6月～2011年6月,我院对8例中央型肾肿瘤施行腹腔镜下肾部分切除术。术中通过仔细游离肾蒂血管,选择性阻断或结扎滋养肿瘤的三级血管,以减少正常肾单位的热缺血时间和术中的出血。结果:8例手术均顺利完成,手术时间为150～300min,平均220min,肾血管阻断时间22～45min,平均33min。肿瘤大小为2.0～6.0cm,平均为2.8cm。需集合系统修补6例(75%)。术中出血量100～400ml,平均为130ml,均未输血。病理报告:肾透明细胞癌6例(75%),肾血管平滑肌脂肪瘤2例,术中及术后切缘均阴性。术后随访3～46个月,平均22.3个月,未见肿瘤局部复发或远处转移。结论:腹腔镜肾部分切除术治疗中央型肾肿瘤安全有效,选择性阻断或结扎滋养肿瘤的肾动脉三级分支可以有效减少正常肾单位的热缺血时间和出血,有利于该术式的开展。     

后腹腔镜肾部分切除术治疗肾肿瘤24例体会

目的探讨后腹腔镜肾部分切除术治疗肾肿瘤的安全性。方法将48例肾肿瘤患者随机分为2组,治疗组采用后腹腔镜肾部分切除术,对照组采用开放式肾部分切除术,对比2组手术时间、术中出血量、热缺血时间、住院时间以及术后并发症发生率。结果 2组手术时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)治疗组术后并发症发生率、术中出血量和住院时间均低于对照组(P0.05),2组比较,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论后腹腔镜肾部分切除术创伤小,术后并发症发生率低,效果肯定。     

腹腔镜保留肾单位手术治疗复杂性肾肿瘤中倒刺缝合对热缺血时间及并发症的影响

目的:探讨倒刺缝合在腹腔镜下保留肾单位手术治疗复杂性肾肿瘤中对热缺血时间及并发症的影响。方法:回顾分析62例接受腹腔镜下肾部分切除术的复杂性肾肿瘤(R.E.N.A.L评分≥7分)患者的临床资料,根据肾脏缝合方法分为倒刺组(n=28)与传统组(n=34)。对比两组患者的热缺血时间、手术时间、缝合时间、出血量、输血率、并发症及肾功能变化等资料。结果:倒刺组热缺血时间、手术时间、缝合时间及术中出血量均少于传统组,差异有统计学意义(P0.01),两组术后并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P0.05),术后随访1个月,术后血清肌酐两组差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:倒刺缝合对于腹腔镜下复杂性肾肿瘤患者行肾部分切除术是安全、可行的,利于缩短肾热缺血时间,提高手术效率,减少术后出血。     

后腹腔镜肾部分切除术治疗马蹄肾并肾肿瘤2例报告

目的：探讨后腹腔镜肾部分切除术治疗马蹄肾并肾肿瘤的可行性。方法：对2例马蹄肾并肾肿瘤患者行后腹腔镜肾部分切除术,因伴发不同程度肾积水,同时行腹腔镜下峡部离断。结果：2例腹腔镜手术均获成功,手术时间平均120min,术中出血量平均100ml,无术中及术后并发症发生。结论：后腹腔镜肾部分切除术治疗马蹄肾并肾肿瘤是安全可行的微创治疗方法。     

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。     

孤立肾肾肿瘤外科保肾治疗策略的选择及初步探讨

目的:探讨孤立肾肾肿瘤保肾治疗策略的选择。方法:回顾本中心2017年2月—2022年3月收治孤立肾肾肿瘤患者41例,男28例,女13例,年龄59(27～79)岁。其中38例为体检或术后复查中发现,2例患者因血尿就诊,1例患者因腰腹部肿块就诊。肿瘤位于左肾14例,右肾27例,其中肾门部肿瘤2例,肿瘤直径24(8～75) mm。所有患者均在气管插管全麻下进行,其中4例行开放肾部分切除术,19例行腹腔镜肾部分切除术,11例行机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术,3例行小切口辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术,4例行腹腔镜肾肿瘤微波消融术。记录手术时间、出血量、肾动脉阻断方式、肾动脉阻断时间、术中及术后并发症、术前及出院前血肌酐值、住院时间。结果:所有手术均安全顺利完成,无术中并发症发生,2例腹腔镜肾部分切除术采用分支动脉阻断,其余肾部分切除术均采用肾动脉主干阻断,腹腔镜肾肿瘤微波消融术均无阻断。2例患者出现术后并发症。开放肾部分切除术组、腹腔镜肾部分切除术组、机器人肾部分切除术组、小切口辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术组及腹腔镜微波消融组中位手术时间(173 min vs 135 min vs 120 min vs 26...     

机器人辅助腹腔镜与腹腔镜保留肾单位手术治疗肾门唇部肿瘤的临床对比分析

目的:探讨机器人辅助腹腔镜与传统腹腔镜对肾门唇部肿瘤行保留肾单位手术的临床疗效对比及手术经验。方法:回顾性分析2016年1月～2018年8月我院行保留肾单位微创手术治疗的68例肾门唇部肿瘤患者的临床资料,其中前唇肿瘤45例,后唇肿瘤23例。肿瘤直径1.5～8.0cm,平均4.2cm。行机器人手术38例(机器人组),腹腔镜手术30例(腹腔镜组)。结果:68例手术均顺利进行,平均手术时间93min(60～180min,不包含机器人装机时间),平均肾动脉阻断时间21.6(7～44)min,平均术中出血量156(20～600)ml,平均术后引流管拔除时间4(3～6)d,平均术后住院5.3(4～9)d,未出现明显术后并发症。中位随访13.5(3～32)个月,无复发、转移、死亡病例。与腹腔镜相比,机器人手术可明显减少手术时间(P<0.001)和术中出血量(P=0.011);机器人组与腹腔镜组肾动脉阻断时间分别为(19.0±6.5)min和(25.0±7.4)min(P=0.001),住院费用分别为(5.2±0.4)万元和(3.7±0.4)万元(P<0.001)。结论:肾门肿瘤采用微创保留肾单位手术进行治疗是安全可行的。与传统腹腔镜相比,机器人手术的住院费用增加,但对于治疗肾门肿瘤优势明显,可以显著缩短热缺血时间,减少术中出血量,使患者得到最大程度的获益。     

腹腔镜与开放行肾部分切除术的临床疗效比较

目的：比较腹腔镜下与开放行肾部分切除术治疗肾肿瘤的效果。方法：回顾性分析2007年1月～2010年7月肾部分切除术41例,其中腹腔镜肾部分切除术18例,开放肾部分切除术23例,对两种方法的临床效果进行比较。结果：腹腔镜组和开放组术中出血量分别为（200±35）ml、（363±48）ml,进食时间分别为（2．7士1．0）d、（3．8±1．3）d,住院时间分别为（13．2±3．0）d、（16．4±4．3）d,两组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。两组术后引流管留置时间分别为（3．7±1．3）d、（4．7士1．4）d,两组比较无明显差异（P〉0．05）。腹腔镜组和开放组手术时间分别为（137土95）min、（125±52）min,热缺血时间分别为（27．8i2．1）min、（17．8±8．6）min,两组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论：与开放肾部分切除术相比,腹腔镜肾部分切除术具有失血量少、术后进食快、住院时间短等优点,但手术时间和。肾热缺血时间稍长。     

Is Renal Warm Ischemia over 30 Minutes during Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy Possible? One-Year Results of a Prospective Study

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate renal damage and impairment of renal function 1 yr after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) with warm ischemia >30 min. METHODS: From July 2004 to June 2005, 18 patients underwent LPN with warm ischemia time >30 min. Kidney damage markers (daily proteinuria and tubular enzymes) and renal function (serum creatinine, cystatin C, and creatinine clearances) were assessed on postoperative days 1 and 5 and at 12 mo. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was evaluated before surgery and at 3 mo. Renal scintigraphy was performed before the procedure, at 5 d and at 3 and 12 mo postoperatively. Statistical analysis was performed using the Student t test and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: In terms of kidney damage and renal function markers, the statistical analysis demonstrated that at 1 yr there was complete return to the normal range and no statistical difference between the values at the various time points. The GFR was not significantly different before and 3 mo after surgery. In terms of scintigraphy of the operated kidney, the values were 48.35+/-3.82% (40-50%) before the procedure, 36.88+/-8.42 (16-50%) on postoperative day 5 (p=0.0001), 40.56+/-8.96 (20-50%) at 3 mo (p=0.003), and 42.8+/-7.2% (20-50%) 1 yr after surgery (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that kidney damage occurs during LPN when warm ischemia is >30 min. This damage is only partially reversible and efforts should be made to keep warm ischemia within 30 min.     

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.     

The impact of warm ischaemia on renal function after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy

Authors from Cleveland assessed the impact of warm ischaemia on renal function, using their large database of laparoscopic partial nephrectomies for tumour. While agreeing that renal hilar clamping is essential for precise excision of the tumour, and other elements of the operation, the authors indicate that warm ischaemia may potentially damage the kidney. However, they found that there were virtually no clinical sequelae from warm ischaemic of up to 30 min. They also found that advancing age and pre-existing renal damage increased the risk of postoperative renal damage. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of warm ischaemia on renal function after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) for tumour, and to evaluate the influence of various risk factors on renal function. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were analysed from 179 patients undergoing LPN for renal tumour under warm ischaemic conditions, with clamping of the renal artery and vein. Renal function was primarily evaluated in two groups of patients: 15 with tumour in a solitary kidney, who were evaluated by serial serum creatinine measurements; and 12 with two functioning kidneys undergoing unilateral LPN, and evaluated by renal scintigraphy before and 1 month after LPN to quantify differential renal function. Also, in all 179 patients, mean serum creatinine data at baseline, 1 day after LPN, at hospital discharge, and at the last follow-up were provided as supportive evidence. Logistic regression analyses were used to assess the effect of various risk factors on renal function after LPN, i.e. patient age, baseline serum creatinine, tumour size, solitary kidney status, duration of warm ischaemia, pelvicalyceal suture repair, urine output and intravenous fluids during LPN. RESULTS: In the group of patients with a solitary kidney the mean warm ischaemia time was 29 min, kidney parenchyma excised 29%, and serum creatinine at baseline, discharge, the peak after LPN and at the last follow-up (mean 4.8 months) 1.3, 2.3, 2.8, and 1.8 mg/dL, respectively. One patient (6.6%) required temporary dialysis. In the second group, assessed by renal scintigraphy, the function of the operated kidney was reduced by a mean of 29%, commensurate with the amount of parenchyma excised. For all 179 patients, a combination of age > or = 70 years and a serum creatinine level after LPN of > or = 1.5 mg/dL correlated with a higher serum creatinine after LPN. On logistic regression, baseline serum creatinine and solitary kidney status were the only variables significant for serum creatinine status after LPN. CONCLUSIONS: The bloodless field provided by renal hilar clamping is important for precise tumour excision, pelvicalyceal suture repair and securing parenchymal haemostasis during LPN. However, renal hilar clamping causes warm ischaemia. These data indicate that the clinical sequelae of warm ischaemic renal injury of approximately 30 min are minimal. Advancing age and pre-existing azotaemia increase the risk of renal dysfunction after LPN, especially when the warm ischaemia exceeds 30 min.     

影响腹腔镜下保留肾单位术后肾功能的多因素分析

目的 探讨影响腹腔镜下保留.肾单位手术术后肾功能的因素. 方法 前瞻性总结50例肾癌腹腔镜下保留肾单位手术患者临床资料.采用99 Tcm-二乙三胺五乙酸肾动态显像检测术前术后分肾肾小球滤过率(GFR)值的变化.采用相关和多元回归模型分析与术后.肾功能损害有关的因素,包括患者年龄、肿瘤大小、术前血肌酐值、术中肾血管阻断时间及术中出血量,确定影响术后肾功能的危险因素.随访其中20例,比较术前、术后1周及术后3个月 GFR值,明确肾脏热缺血安全时间;同时观察肾功能恢复情况. 结果 50例患者手术前后GFR平均值分别为(45.86土5.14)、(34.52+5.89)ml/min,术后减少约24%.多元回归分析显示肾血管阻断致肾脏热缺血时间长短是决定术后肾功能损害的独立危险因素.肾脏热缺血时间≤30 min和＞30 rain组,术前术后1周的GFR值分别为(45.38±6.19)和(38.54土5.18)、(46.11±4.62)和(32.51士6.26)ml/min,前者GFR值降低程度低于后者,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01)}随访观察20例患者,肾脏热缺血时间≤30 min组术后3个月GFR值(44.38+5.59)ml/min,与术前相比,P＞0.05,差异无统计学意义;年龄＞70岁、肾脏热缺血时间＞30 min或肾脏热缺血时间＞60 rain的患者术后3个月GFR值恢复缓慢.结论影响腹腔镜下保留肾单位术后肾功能的关键因素为肾脏热缺血时间,肾脏热缺血时间≤30min者术后肾功能可以完全恢复;肾脏热缺血时间＞30 min且年龄＞70岁或肾脏热缺血时间＞60min者术后肾功能有一定程度的损害.     

Evaluation of renal function after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with renal scintigraphy using 99mtechnetium-mercaptoacetyltriglycine

AIM: We evaluated the functions of an affected kidney after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) using renal scintigraphy with (99m)technetium-mercaptoacetyltriglycine ((99m)Tc-MAG3). METHODS: Split renal function of 10 patients who underwent LPN for renal tumors was assessed using renal scintigraphy with (99m)Tc-MAG3 before surgery, and 1 week and 3 months post-surgery. RESULTS: Median operating time was 196.5 min, median tumor diameter was 2.3 cm, mean blood loss was 64 mL and mean ischemic time was 38.5 min. Median change in serum creatinine level pre- to post-surgery was 0.15 mg/dL. Median contribution of the affected kidney to total renal function (calculated using (99m)Tc-MAG3) was 50.0%, 41.7% and 36.1% before surgery, 1 week and 3 months after LPN, respectively. In one patient, the tumor was resected after cooling of the affected kidney with ice slush for 15 min, and the split renal function ratio remained as high as 50% at 3 months post-operatively despite a total ischemic time of 61 min. CONCLUSIONS: This paper evaluated renal function on the affected side before and after surgery by measuring split renal function with renal scintigraphy using (99m)Tc-MAG3. Risk factors for renal dysfunction in the affected kidney after LPN include age over 70 years with more than 30 min warm ischemic time, re-clamping of the renal artery procedure, and a warm ischemic time greater than 60 min. We believe that renal cooling with slush ice prevents renal dysfunction of the affected kidney after LPN with longer warm ischemic times. However, an easier renal cooling technique should be sought for regular use of cooling procedures in LPN.     

Outcomes of Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy after Fellowship Training

Background and Objectives:

Experienced surgeons at select high-volume centers have reported favorable outcomes of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) in their contemporary experience. However, it is unclear whether recently fellowship-trained surgeons can replicate such outcomes. We evaluated LPNs performed by 3 surgeons in their initial years of independent practice following laparoscopic fellowship training.

Methods:

Prospectively maintained databases were queried for LPNs performed during the first 3.5 years of practice. Intraoperative parameters, oncological efficacy, and postoperative complications were analyzed.

Results:

Of 138 total LPNs (76 left, 62 right), the mean patient age was 57 years, mean tumor size was 2.52cm, and mean depth of invasion was 1.68cm. Mean OR time was 252 minutes, mean warm ischemia time (WIT) was 26 minutes, and mean estimated blood loss (EBL) was 202 mL. Complications occurred in 7 patients (5%), and conversions occurred in 9 patients (7%). Comparison of the first 15 vs. the last 15 cases demonstrated a significant reduction in mean OR time (204 min vs. 253 min, P=0.007), and mean WIT (24 min vs. 32 min, P<0.001). No significant change was demonstrated for tumor size (2.6 cm vs. 2.4 cm, P=0.390) or EBL (226 mL vs. 220 mL, P=0.922).

Conclusion:

Newly fellowship-trained surgeons performing LPN achieve initial outcomes comparable to those reported by highly experienced surgeons. Further experience reduced total operative and warm ischemia times.     

Clampless laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a step towards a harmless nephron-sparing surgery?

Purpose: To evaluate the results of our technique of clampless laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and its impact as an emerging treatment for small renal masses (SMRs). Materials and Methods: We reviewed our prospectively maintained database: data of 117 patients who consecutively underwent LPN at our Institution from January 2009 to December 2011 were studied. Patients were divided into 2 Groups based on operative technique: Group A: clampless-LPN (cl-LPN); Group B: conventional LPN (clamping of renal artery). Demographic and peri-operative data, complications, pre- and post-operative serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were registered and compared by Student's t- and Chi-square-tests (p-values < 0.05 considered statistically significant). Results: 41 patients were in Group A and 76 in Group B. Groups were comparable in terms of preoperative data except for tumour's size (2.35 ± 1.10 vs. 3.19 ± 1.57, Group A vs. B, respectively, p = 0.0029). Concerning perioperative data, warm ischemia time (WIT) was 0 min. in all Group A cases; mean WIT in Group B was 20.90 ± 9.27 min. One case (2.4%) in Group A (central tumour) was converted to conventional LPN. Mean eGFR postoperative decrease was higher in Group B (0.17 ± 9.30 vs. 4.38 ± 11.37 mL/min., A vs B, respectively, p = 0.0445). Conclusions: Notwithstanding the limits of the study, our results suggest that cl-LPN is a safe and effective technique, which allows surgeon to surgically treat SRMs even in case of complex location, without injuring kidney by ischemia.     

Nephron-sparing surgery for renal tumours: acceleration and facilitation of the laparoscopic technique

OBJECTIVE: Present our surgical technique for and experience with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) for renal tumours during warm ischaemia. METHODS: Twenty-five patients underwent LPN during warm ischaemia via a transperitoneal four-trocar approach. Mean tumour size was 26.2+/-7.3mm (range: 11-39 mm). Sixteen tumours were exophytic, 7 endophytic, and 2 central. The renal vessels were secured by an umbilical tape and occluded by a self-made Rumel tourniquet. Tumours were excised with a cold Endo-shear. The interstitial tissue and collecting system was closed using a running suture secured by two resorbable clips. Parenchymal edges were approximated using a running suture over a haemostatic bolster. The threads were secured by non-resorbable clips. During follow-up, renal function was evaluated by determination of serum creatinine, (99m)Tc-mercaptoacetyltriglycine scintigraphy, and parenchymal transit time. RESULTS: Mean ischaemia time was 28.9+/-5.2 min (range: 19-40 min) and the mean blood loss was 177.4+/-285.5 ml (range: 50-1500 ml). No intraoperative complications occurred and no patient needed conversion to open surgery. Surgical margins were negative in all patients. One postoperative surgical-related perirenal haematoma occurred, which was treated conservatively (no transfusions required). None of the patients had a urinary leak. During a mean follow-up of 6.2 mo (range: 1-15 mo), none of the patients had local or port-site recurrence or distant metastasis. Parenchymal transit time was increased in 1 of 10 investigated patients (ischaemia time: 26 min), indicating ischaemic parenchymal damage. CONCLUSION: Our technical refinements for LPN during warm ischaemia have widened indications to more complex tumours. The use of clips rather than knot tying made the procedure easier and faster and allowed completion of the suturing during an acceptable warm ischaemia time. The self-made Rumel tourniquet is safe and efficient for vessel control and occlusion. These improvements increase feasibility so that LPN can be used by more laparoscopic urologic surgeons.