Laparoscopic Nephrectomy: Assessment of Morcellation versus Intact Specimen Extraction on Postoperative Status
Department of Urology, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland 21287, USA. The Journal of Urology
(Impact Factor: 4.47).
08/2003; 170(2 Pt 1):412-5. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000076667.70020.82
We compared pathological evaluation and postoperative recovery in patients undergoing transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy at our institution with morcellated vs intact specimen extraction.
A prospective evaluation of 57 consecutive patients undergoing radical and simple transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy was reviewed. One patient was excluded from study due to transitional cell carcinoma, which was detected intraoperatively. The 33 morcellated specimens were extracted at the umbilical port and the 23 intact specimens were extracted through a midline infraumbilical incision. Data were obtained on narcotic requirements, hospital stay, complications, estimated blood loss, mass size based on preoperative imaging, specimen weight and extraction incision length.
Mean incision length in the morcellated and intact specimen removal groups was 1.2 and 7.1 cm, respectively (p <0.001). No significant differences in pain or recovery were noted between the 2 groups. Two cases of microscopic invasion of the perinephric adipose tissue in the intact specimen group were up staged from clinical T1 to pT3a disease. No change in patient treatment was made based on this information.
We did not find a significant difference in surgical time, pain or hospital stay. Only incision length was statistically significant. Postoperative recovery appeared to be similar in these 2 groups. With modern imaging modalities information on pathological stage did not alter patient treatment.
Available from: Ithaar Derweesh
- "Since introduction of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) the procedure has been refined and adopted as a standard of care for appropriate renal masses, with advantages including decreased blood loss, lower narcotic requirements, shorter hospital stays, and more rapid return to normal activities while maintaining equivalent short-and long-term oncologic efficacy compared with open radical nephrectomy   . These improved outcomes are thought in large part to be a result of the smaller incisions, and thus laparoscopy has rapidly emerged as standard of care for radical nephrectomy . Similar to the introduction of LRN with its equivalent oncologic outcomes and improved morbidity profile, with the advent of improved laparoscopic surgical instrumentation and refinements in technique, LPN has emerged as a viable alternative to open partial nephrectomy (OPN) with equivalent short-and intermediate-term outcomes for selected patients  . "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Introduction. Laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) may diminish morbidity of laparoscopic surgery. We prospectively evaluated feasibility and outcomes of LESS-Radical Nephrectomy (LESS-RN) and Partial Nephrectomy (LESS-PN). Methods. 10 patients underwent LESS-RN (6) and LESS-PN (4) between 2/2009-5/2009. LESS-RN included 2 with renal vein thrombectomy, one of which was also cytoreductive. Transperitoneal LESS access was obtained by periumbilical incision. Patient/tumor characteristics, oncologic, and quality of life (QoL) outcomes were analyzed. Results. 3 Men/7 Women (mean age 58.7 years, median follow-up 9.8 months) underwent LESS. 9/10 cases were completed successfully. All had negative margins. Mean operative time was 161 minutes, estimated blood loss was 125 mL, and incision size was 4.4 cm. Median tumor size for LESS-RN and -PN was 5.0 and 1.7 cm (P = .045). Median LESS-PN ischemia time was 24 minutes; mean preoperative/postoperative creatinine were 0.7/0.8 mg/dL (P = .19). Mean pain score at discharge was 1.3. Mean preoperative, 3-, and 6-month postoperative SF-36 QoL Score was 73.8, 74.4 and 77.1 (P = .222). All patients are currently alive. Conclusions. LESS-RN, renal vein thrombectomy, and PN are technically feasible and safe while maintaining adherence to oncologic principles, with excellent QoL preservation and low discharge pain scores. Further study is requisite.
Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy 06/2010; 2010(1070-3608):107482. DOI:10.1155/2010/107482
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The manner to extract the specimen after retro-peritoneoscopic nephroureterectomy varies to different surgical teams. The aim of the surgeon is to extract the specimen with minimum parietal injuries, according with oncologic principles. The objective of our study was to evaluate the ilio-inguinal approach to extract the specimen after retro-peritoneoscopic nephroureterectomy.
Evaluation and follow-up of 71 patients with retroperitoneoscopic nephroureterectomy for urothelial cancer (65 pelvic urothelial carcinoma and 6 urothelial carcinoma of the ureter). Ilio-inguinal incision was used for 68 patients to extract the specimen.
The operating time was 110 +/- 47 min. Blood lost 101 +/- 57 ml. Retroperitoneoscopic approach 10 +/- 4 min. Ilio-inguinal approach 25 +/- 10 min. The weight of the specimen was 601 +/- 127g. Tumor dimension was 5.9 +/- 1.9 cm. No conversion to open surgery was made. No late post surgery complications were registered ( follow-up at 2 and 6 months).
The enlarged nephroureterectomy can be performed using retroperitoneoscopic approach and the specimen can be extracted through an incision at iliac fossa. This approach can be used to extract large specimens preserving the esthetic laparoscopic benefit as well as the oncologic salty and reducing the risk of post-operative eventration.
Chirurgia (Bucharest, Romania: 1990) 103(1):61-6. · 0.78 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.