V7-02 ROBOTIC LEVEL 3 CAVA THROMBECTOMY

Robotic renal and adrenal oncologic surgery: A contemporary review

Robot-assisted surgery has evolved over time. Radical nephrectomy with inferior vena cava thrombectomy is feasible and safe for level I, II and III thrombus in high volume centers. Though it is feasible for level IV thrombus, this procedure needs a multi-departmental co-operation. However, the safety of robot-assisted procedures in this subset is still unknown. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy has been universally approved and found oncologically safe. Robotic adrenalectomy has been increasingly utilized for select cases, especially in bilateral tumors and for retroperitoneal adrenalectomy.

Robot-assisted Retrohepatic Inferior Vena Cava Thrombectomy: First or Second Porta Hepatis as an Important Boundary Landmark

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted retrohepatic inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombectomy (RA-R-IVCTE) has been reported only for limited series.

OBJECTIVE

To describe in detail the techniques for RA-R-IVCTE with regard to the relationship of a proximal thrombus to either the first porta hepatis (FPH) or second porta hepatis (SPH).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

From May 2013 to July 2016, 22 patients with R-IVC tumor thrombi were admitted to our hospital.

SURGICAL PROCEDURE

RA-R-IVCTE was performed using the Rummel tourniquet technique. For a proximal thrombus inferior to the FPH, we ligated some short hepatic veins (SHVs; typically 1-3). For a thrombus between the FPH and SPH, we mobilized the right lobe of the liver from the IVC by ligating additional SHVs. For a thrombus near or above the SPH but below the diaphragm, we mobilized both the right and left lobes of the liver to obtain high proximal control of the suprahepatic and infradiaphragmatic IVC, and simultaneously clamped the FPH.

MEASUREMENTS

Detailed techniques were described for various scenarios and perioperative outcomes were recorded.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The median operation time was 285min (interquartile range [IQR] 191-390). Intraoperative estimated blood loss was 1350ml (IQR 1000-2075ml). Some 63.6% of patients required an intraoperative blood transfusion and 68% were transferred to the intensive care unit after surgery. Grade IV complications developed in five cases. Vascular injuries (4 cases) were treated with intraoperative endoscopic sutures. An intestinal fistula was found on postoperative day 7 in one case; treatment with gastrointestinal decompression and drainage resolved the condition by 1 mo.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though the risks involved are high, RA-R-IVCTE is feasible for selected patients. The FPH/SPH is an important boundary landmark for RA-R-IVCTE. The location of proximal IVC tumor thrombi in relation to the FPH or SPH should determine the technique used.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Robot-assisted thrombectomy for retrohepatic inferior vena cava tumor thrombus is feasible in selected patients.

Robotic Level III Inferior Vena Cava Tumor Thrombectomy: Initial Series

PURPOSE

Level III inferior vena cava tumor thrombectomy for renal cancer is one of the most challenging open urologic oncology surgeries. We present the initial series of completely intracorporeal robotic level III inferior vena cava tumor thrombectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nine patients underwent robotic level III inferior vena cava thrombectomy and 7 patients underwent level II thrombectomy. The entire operation (high intrahepatic inferior vena cava control, caval exclusion, tumor thrombectomy, inferior vena cava repair, radical nephrectomy, retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy) was performed exclusively robotically. To minimize the chances of intraoperative inferior vena cava thrombus embolization, an "inferior vena cava-first, kidney-last" robotic technique was developed. Data were accrued prospectively.

RESULTS

All 16 robotic procedures were successful, without open conversion or mortality. For level III cases (9), median primary kidney (right 6, left 3) cancer size was 8.5 cm (range 5.3 to 10.8) and inferior vena cava thrombus length was 5.7 cm (range 4 to 7). Median operative time was 4.9 hours (range 4.5 to 6.3), estimated blood loss was 375 cc (range 200 to 7,000) and hospital stay was 4.5 days. All surgical margins were negative. There were no intraoperative complications and 1 postoperative complication (Clavien 3b). At a median 7 months of followup (range 1 to 18) all patients are alive. Compared to level II thrombi the level III cohort trended toward greater inferior vena cava thrombus length (3.3 vs 5.7 cm), operative time (4.5 vs 4.9 hours) and blood loss (290 vs 375 cc).

CONCLUSIONS

With appropriate patient selection, surgical planning and robotic experience, completely intracorporeal robotic level III inferior vena cava thrombectomy is feasible and can be performed efficiently. Larger experience, longer followup and comparison with open surgery are needed to confirm these initial outcomes.