Laparoscopic nephrectomy: initial experience and 3 years follow-up with 68 cases

Kaloyan Davidoff, Elenko Popov, Adrian Popov, Dimitar Zlatanov, N. Stoyanov, Assen Alexandrov, V. Ivanov, K. Ibrahimov

Abstract


Introduction: Partial nephrectomy is considered the gold standard procedure in managing small renal masses less than 4cm, even less than 7 cm in the last decade. Minimal invasive surgery is a preferred option in those cases. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy has equivalent oncological results with open partial nephrectomy, offering in the same time all the advantages of minimal invasive surgery. The purpose of our study is to present our initial experience in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.
Material and Methods: Between May 2015 and December 2017, 68 selected patients with renal masses smaller than 7cm observed by CT scan, were submitted to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Patient demographics, preoperative tumor characteristics and detailed operative, postoperative and pathologic data were collected.
Results: Mean age of patients is 56,1 years (44-71), mean diameter of renal tumor 5, 3 cm (3,3 - 7,4 cm).36 patients had a right partial nephrectomy and 32 a left one, with no intraoperative complications. In four patients a laparoscopic radical nephrectomy was done, there are no cases of conversion to open surgery. The operation time ranged from 90 to 211 min, estimated blood loss (EBL) ranged from 30 to 300 ml and warm ischemia time (WIT) ranged from 5 to 31 min. Overall, four cases of postoperative complications CDC ≥ 3 were observed. One patient presented with a ureteric stricture and 3 with bleeding which necessitate angiographic intervention. There was one patient with a microscopic positive surgical margin and all patients are disease free during follow up (3-20 months, mean 12,2 months). Mean serum creatinine level has increased 23 mcmol/L (0-114).
Conclusion: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy is a safe and feasible approach in small renal masses, offering all the advantages of minimal invasive surgery


Keywords


partial nephrectomy; laparoscopy; initial experience; renal tumor

Full Text:

PDF

References


Belldegrun A, Tsui KH, deKernion JB, Smith RB: Efficacy of nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma: analysis based on the new 1997 tumor-node-metastasis staging system. J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17: 2868-75.

European Urology Guidelines 2014.

Fergany AF, Hafez KS, Novick AC: Long-term results of nephron sparing surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: 10-year follow up. J Urol. 2000; 163: 442-5.

McKiernan J, Simmons R, Katz J, Russo P: Natural history of chronic renal insufficiency after partial and radical nephrectomy. Urology. 2002; 59: 816-20.

Lau WK, Blute ML, Weaver AL, Torres VE, Zincke H: Matched comparison of radical nephrectomy vs nephron-sparing surgery in patients with unilateral renal cell carcinoma and a normal contralateral kidney. Mayo Clin Proc. 2000; 75: 1236-42.

Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Lane BR, Blute ML, Babineau D, Colombo JR Jr, et al.: Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors. J Urol. 2007; 178: 41-6.

Porpiglia F, Volpe A, Billia M, Scarpa RM : Laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy: analysis of the current literature Eur Urol 2008;53:732-42;discussion 742-3.

Kutikov A., Uzzo RG., The R.E.N.A.L. Nephrometry score :a comprehensive standarized system for quantitating renal tumor size location and depth J Urol 2009 Sep;182(3) 844-53.

Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM. Proposed classification of complications ofsurgery with examples of utility in cholocystectomy. Surgery 1992 May;111(5):518-26.

Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13.

Uzzo RG, Novick AC.Nephron sparing surgery for renal tumors: indications, techniques and outcomes. J Urol 1993;149:1633-6.

Gong EM., OrvietoMA., Zorn KC, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and partial nephrectomy in clinical T1a renal tumors J Endourol 2008;22:953-7.

Lane BR, Gill IS. 5-year outcomes of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Urol 2007;177:70-4.

Abukora F, Nambirajan T, Albqami N, et al. Laparoscopic nephron sparing surgery : evolution in a decade. Eur Urol 2005;47:488-93.

Kim FJ, Rha KH, Hernandez F, et al. Laparoscopic radical versus partial nephrectomy: assessment of complications. J Urol 2003;170:408.

Finelli A, Gill IS, Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: Contemporary technique and results. Urol Oncol 2004;22:139.

Guillonneu B., Bermudez H, Gholami S, et al Lparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumor : single center experience comparing clamping and no clamping techniques of therenal vasculature. J Urol 2004;171:1443.

Gordon A., Brown. MD, Surena F, Matin MD Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: Experience in 60 cases.

White WM, Goel RK, Haber GP, Kaouk JH: Robotic partial nephrectomy without renal hilar occlusion.

Aliaf ME, Bhayani SB, Rogers C, Varkarakis I, Link RE, Inagaki T, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: evaluation of long term oncological outcomes J Urol 2004;172:871-3.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.19264/hj.v30i2.230