Prospective comparative study between retroperitoneoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic approach for radical nephrectomy

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Tobias-Machado,Marcos
Data de Publicação: 2009
Outros Autores: Ravizzini,Pedro I., Pertusier,Leonardo O., Pedroso,Eduardo, Wroclawski,Eric R.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: International Braz J Urol (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382009000300004
Resumo: OBJECTIVE: No consensus has yet been established regarding the best minimally invasive access for radical ablation of renal tumors. Our objective was to prospectively compare the surgical results and oncologic management of two currently used endoscopic techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Over a four-year period, 50 patients with renal tumors and clinical stage T1b-T2, smaller than 12 cm, underwent a radical nephrectomy at two reference institutions, 25 underwent retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy (RRN) and 25 a hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (HALRN). Mean follow-up of both cohorts was 50 months. Operative parameters and oncological management were compared. RESULTS: The mean operative time was 180 min in RRN and 108 min in HALRN (p < 0.001). The time required to access the renal pedicle in RRN was 30 min. and in HALRN 40 min., Learning curve was shorter in HALRN than RRN. Mean blood loss was 100 mL in RRN and 242 mL in HALRN. Mean incision size for specimen retrieval in RRN was 6.5 cm and in HALRN 7.5 cm. One patient with intra operative occurrence of ascites and subsequent pathological stage pT2N0M0 grade 3 operated via HALRN, had neoplasic implants in the Hand-port incision 3 months after surgery followed by death 4 months after recurrence. One patient, with pathological stage pT3N0M0 grade 3 in RRN had metastasis after 36 months. CONCLUSION: Both, RRN and HALRN techniques are accepted minimally invasive options for endoscopic radical nephrectomy with equivalent long term oncological outcome in the treatment of renal tumors.
id SBU-1_af13d3a947883f060cdeef8708a0817d
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1677-55382009000300004
network_acronym_str SBU-1
network_name_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Prospective comparative study between retroperitoneoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic approach for radical nephrectomykidney neoplasmssurgerynephrectomylaparoscopyOBJECTIVE: No consensus has yet been established regarding the best minimally invasive access for radical ablation of renal tumors. Our objective was to prospectively compare the surgical results and oncologic management of two currently used endoscopic techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Over a four-year period, 50 patients with renal tumors and clinical stage T1b-T2, smaller than 12 cm, underwent a radical nephrectomy at two reference institutions, 25 underwent retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy (RRN) and 25 a hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (HALRN). Mean follow-up of both cohorts was 50 months. Operative parameters and oncological management were compared. RESULTS: The mean operative time was 180 min in RRN and 108 min in HALRN (p < 0.001). The time required to access the renal pedicle in RRN was 30 min. and in HALRN 40 min., Learning curve was shorter in HALRN than RRN. Mean blood loss was 100 mL in RRN and 242 mL in HALRN. Mean incision size for specimen retrieval in RRN was 6.5 cm and in HALRN 7.5 cm. One patient with intra operative occurrence of ascites and subsequent pathological stage pT2N0M0 grade 3 operated via HALRN, had neoplasic implants in the Hand-port incision 3 months after surgery followed by death 4 months after recurrence. One patient, with pathological stage pT3N0M0 grade 3 in RRN had metastasis after 36 months. CONCLUSION: Both, RRN and HALRN techniques are accepted minimally invasive options for endoscopic radical nephrectomy with equivalent long term oncological outcome in the treatment of renal tumors.Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2009-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382009000300004International braz j urol v.35 n.3 2009reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/S1677-55382009000300004info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessTobias-Machado,MarcosRavizzini,Pedro I.Pertusier,Leonardo O.Pedroso,EduardoWroclawski,Eric R.eng2009-08-24T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382009000300004Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2009-08-24T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Prospective comparative study between retroperitoneoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic approach for radical nephrectomy
title Prospective comparative study between retroperitoneoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic approach for radical nephrectomy
spellingShingle Prospective comparative study between retroperitoneoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic approach for radical nephrectomy
Tobias-Machado,Marcos
kidney neoplasms
surgery
nephrectomy
laparoscopy
title_short Prospective comparative study between retroperitoneoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic approach for radical nephrectomy
title_full Prospective comparative study between retroperitoneoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic approach for radical nephrectomy
title_fullStr Prospective comparative study between retroperitoneoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic approach for radical nephrectomy
title_full_unstemmed Prospective comparative study between retroperitoneoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic approach for radical nephrectomy
title_sort Prospective comparative study between retroperitoneoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic approach for radical nephrectomy
author Tobias-Machado,Marcos
author_facet Tobias-Machado,Marcos
Ravizzini,Pedro I.
Pertusier,Leonardo O.
Pedroso,Eduardo
Wroclawski,Eric R.
author_role author
author2 Ravizzini,Pedro I.
Pertusier,Leonardo O.
Pedroso,Eduardo
Wroclawski,Eric R.
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Tobias-Machado,Marcos
Ravizzini,Pedro I.
Pertusier,Leonardo O.
Pedroso,Eduardo
Wroclawski,Eric R.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv kidney neoplasms
surgery
nephrectomy
laparoscopy
topic kidney neoplasms
surgery
nephrectomy
laparoscopy
description OBJECTIVE: No consensus has yet been established regarding the best minimally invasive access for radical ablation of renal tumors. Our objective was to prospectively compare the surgical results and oncologic management of two currently used endoscopic techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Over a four-year period, 50 patients with renal tumors and clinical stage T1b-T2, smaller than 12 cm, underwent a radical nephrectomy at two reference institutions, 25 underwent retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy (RRN) and 25 a hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (HALRN). Mean follow-up of both cohorts was 50 months. Operative parameters and oncological management were compared. RESULTS: The mean operative time was 180 min in RRN and 108 min in HALRN (p < 0.001). The time required to access the renal pedicle in RRN was 30 min. and in HALRN 40 min., Learning curve was shorter in HALRN than RRN. Mean blood loss was 100 mL in RRN and 242 mL in HALRN. Mean incision size for specimen retrieval in RRN was 6.5 cm and in HALRN 7.5 cm. One patient with intra operative occurrence of ascites and subsequent pathological stage pT2N0M0 grade 3 operated via HALRN, had neoplasic implants in the Hand-port incision 3 months after surgery followed by death 4 months after recurrence. One patient, with pathological stage pT3N0M0 grade 3 in RRN had metastasis after 36 months. CONCLUSION: Both, RRN and HALRN techniques are accepted minimally invasive options for endoscopic radical nephrectomy with equivalent long term oncological outcome in the treatment of renal tumors.
publishDate 2009
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2009-06-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382009000300004
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382009000300004
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S1677-55382009000300004
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv International braz j urol v.35 n.3 2009
reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron:SBU
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron_str SBU
institution SBU
reponame_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
collection International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br
_version_ 1750318070992207872