Comparison of oncological outcomes of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for the management of clear-cell renal cell carcinoma: A multi-institutional study

Department of Urology, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
BJU International (Impact Factor: 3.53). 05/2011; 107(9):1467-72. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09636.x
Source: PubMed


• To investigate the oncological efficacy of retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (RLRN) compared with transperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (TLRN) for the management of clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
• With emphasis on survival and disease recurrence, a retrospective analysis was made of 580 patients who underwent TLRN (472 patients) or RLRN (108 patients) at 23 institutions between January 1997 and December 2007. • Inclusion criteria were clear-cell RCC, stage pT1 to pT2 without any nodal involvement, and metastasis. • Overall survival and recurrence-free survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. • To assess the association between the surgical approach and survival outcomes, Cox proportional hazard models were constructed.
• The median follow-up was 30 months in the TLRN group and 35.6 months in the RLRN group. Both groups were comparable regarding age, gender, body mass index (BMI), Fuhrman's grade, size of tumours and stage. • Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test showed no significant difference between the TLRN and RLRN groups in 5-year overall (92.6% vs 94.5%; P = 0.669) and recurrence-free survival (92.0% vs 96.2%; P = 0.244). • In a Cox regression model with age, gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, BMI, nuclear grade and T-stage adjusted variables, no significant difference was found between the two surgical approaches.
• The present study is the largest oncological analysis for laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) comparing transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. The data from it provide the objective evidence to suggest similar oncological outcomes for both approaches to LRN.

15 Reads
  • Source
    • "Otherwise, it will be bound to extend the operation process, and increase the probability of renal vascular injury and conversion to open surgery (Pareek et al., 2006; Liapis et al., 2008; Ye et al., 2010; Sautter et al., 2011). Most of the current literature mainly report the advantages and oncologic effect of retroperitoneoscopic surgery and prevention of the complications (Ha et al., 2011; Pearce & Subramaniam, 2011; Okegawa et al., 2012; Tepeler et al., 2012), but seldom report how to locate renal pedicles in retroperitoneoscopic operation (Sung & Gill, 2002; Gao et al., 2008), and none of the literatures report the method of accurately locating the renal pedicles and its anatomical basis. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This work aims to investigate the anatomical basis and clinical application value of renal pedicle locating in retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy. To summarize the anatomical basis of renal pedicle locating through retrospective analysis of 278 cases of retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy from July 2007 to September 2009, during which renal pedicle was located at about 2-4 cm below the medial arcuate ligament of the diaphragm in the space between the psoas major muscle and inferior vena cava (abdominal aorta) in the anatomical level of space before psoas. The operation of 278 patients was all successfully completed, where renal pedicle was quickly found. It took 3.5±1.3 min to locate the renal pedicle, and 95.6±23.8 min to operate. In retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy, it is most preferable to locate renal pedicle in the space before psoas. The renal pedicle is located exactly at about 2-4 cm below the medial arcuate ligament of the diaphragm in the space between the psoas major muscle and inferior vena cava (abdominal aorta). The time for locating the renal pedicle can be shortened if the surgeon is familiar with the anatomic features of renal pedicle in retroperitoneoscopy, thereby saving the operation time.
    Preview · Article · Dec 2013 · International Journal of Morphology
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The increasing incidence of localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC) over the last 3 decades and controversy over mortality rates have prompted reassessment of current treatment. To critically review the recent data on the management of localised RCC to arrive at a general consensus. A Medline search was performed from January 1, 2004, to May 3, 2011, using renal cell carcinoma, nephrectomy (Medical Subject Heading [MeSH] major topic), surgical procedures, minimally invasive (MeSH major topic), nephron-sparing surgery, cryoablation, radiofrequency ablation, surveillance, and watchful waiting. Initial active surveillance (AS) should be a first treatment option for small renal masses (SRMs) <4 cm in unfit patients or those with limited life expectancy. SRMs that show fast growth or reach 4 cm in diameter while on AS should be considered for treatment. Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the established treatment for T1a tumours (<4 cm) and an emerging standard treatment for T1b tumours (4-7 cm) provided that the operation is technically feasible and the tumour can be completely removed. Radical nephrectomy (RN) should be limited to those cases where the tumour is not amenable to nephron-sparing surgery (NSS). Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) has benefits over open RN in terms of morbidity and should be the standard of care for T1 and T2 tumours, provided that it is performed in an advanced laparoscopic centre and NSS is not applicable. Open PN, not LRN, should be performed if minimally invasive expertise is not available. At this time, there is insufficient long-term data available to adequately compare ablative techniques with surgical options. Therefore ablative therapies should be reserved for carefully selected high surgical risk patients with SRMs <4 cm. The choice of treatment for the patient with localised RCC needs to be individualised. Preservation of renal function without compromising the oncologic outcome should be the most important goal in the decision-making process.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2011 · European Urology
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare clinical outcomes of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and to identify the indicators for each approach. Methods A total of 258 patients underwent transperitoneal(n=116) or retroperitoneal (n=142) laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for RCC. The operation time, blood loss during operation, fasting period after surgery and hospital stay were compared between the two groups. Results The operation time was 80-315 min(a mean of [167±66.8] min) for transperitoneal approach and 85-280 min(a mean of [152± 48.8] min) for retroperitoneal approach (P=0.034). The blood loss was 50-1,000 ml (a mean of [181±140.4] ml) for transperitoneal approach and 50-800 ml(a mean of [171±132.9] ml) for retroperitoneal approach(P=0.544). The fasting period of surgery was 1-5 d (a mean of [2.8±1.3] d) for transperitoneal approach and 1-5 d (a mean of [2.9±1.2] d) for retroperitoneal approach(P=0.801). The hospital stay was 3-9 d (a mean of [6.6±1.5] d) for transperitoneal approach and 3-8 d (a mean of [6.5±1.6] d) for retroperitoneal approach(P = 0. 477). Conclusion Transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches both can yield satisfactory surgical outcomes in laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. The transperitoneal approach is suitable for tumors with a larger size.
    No preview · Article · Sep 2011 · Academic Journal of Second Military Medical University
Show more