A severe complication of retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy

Role and Utility of Mixed Reality Technology in Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: Outcomes of a Prospective RCT Using an Indigenously Developed Software

Objective

To develop a software for mixed reality (MR) anatomical model creation and study its intraoperative clinical utility to facilitate laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.

Materials and Methods

After institutional review board approval, 47 patients were prospectively randomized for LPN into two groups: the control group (24 patients) underwent operation with an intraoperative ultrasound (US) control and the experimental group (23 patients) with smart glasses HoloLens 2 (Microsoft, Seattle, WA, USA). Our team has developed an open-source software package called “HLOIA,” utilization of which allowed to create and use during surgery the MR anatomical model of the kidney with its vascular pedicle and tumor. The study period extended from June 2020 to February 2021 where demographic, perioperative, and pathological data were collected for all qualifying patients. The objective was to assess the utility of a MR model during LPN and through a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire, completed by the surgeon, immediately after LPN. Patient characteristics were tested using the chi-square test for categorical variables and Student's t-test or Mann–Whitney test for continuous variables.

Results

Comparison of the variables between the groups revealed statistically significant differences only in the following parameters: the time for renal pedicle exposure and the time from the renal pedicle to the detection of tumor localization (p < 0.001), which were in favor of the experimental group. The surgeon's impression of the utility of the MR model by the proposed questionnaire demonstrated high scores in all statements.

Conclusions

Developed open-source software “HLOIA” allowed to create the mixed reality anatomical model by operating urologist which is when used with smart glasses has shown improvement in terms of time for renal pedicle exposure and time for renal tumor identification without compromising safety.

The methods and techniques of identifying renal pedicle vessels during retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical and partial nephrectomy

Background

Retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical and partial nephrectomy (RLRN and RLPN) have become the preferred modes of management for renal malignancy. One of the most critical steps in the RLRN and RLPN process is to seek and control the renal pedicle. The current study focuses on introducing methods and techniques that can help quickly and accurately identify the renal pedicle vessels during RLRN and RLPN.

Methods

RLRNs and RLPNs were performed for 292 cases in our hospital from November 2014 to January 2017. Different measures were adopted to seek and manage bilateral renal pedicle vessels. All operation procedures were performed by the following three steps: dissection, opening, and clamping. For the left lateral, after the perirenal fat in the dorsal and lateral side was fully dissected, the kidney was pushed toward the ventral side. The renal artery was visible when opening the dense bulging connective tissue, which was located in the middle of the dorsal interior of the kidney. Then, the renal artery was clamped with a Hem-o-lok or the Bulldog clamp. For the right kidney pedicles, the inferior vena cava was first identified and then dissipated upward. When the inferior vena cava was not visible, it was often the location of the right renal artery. The treatment for the artery was the same as for the left renal artery. Relevant clinical characteristics of patients, such as operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and duration of postoperative drainage, were analyzed retrospectively. The three-step method of identifying renal pedicle vessels during retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical and partial nephrectomy was evaluated.

Results

All operations were successfully accomplished with satisfying results, during which the artery could be controlled quickly, and no cases were converted to open surgery due to severe bleeding of renal pedicle vessels. There were no complications involving renal vessels during the entire study. The mean operative times were (81.9 ± 19.71) min and (88.2 ± 21.28) min for RLRN and RLPN, with an average intraoperative blood loss of (91.7 ± 47.10) ml and (62.4 ± 47.45) ml, respectively. The warm ischemia time for RLPN was (19.3 ± 5.6) min. The postoperative drainage-tube was removed within (4.5 ± 1.29) d (RLRN) and (4.6 ± 1.98) d (RLPN); the mean postoperative hospital stay times were (7.0 ± 2.4) d and (5.9 ± 1.98) d, respectively.

Conclusion

The three-step method of identifying renal pedicle vessels during RLRN and RLPN is direct and feasible, and it may help simplify the operating procedure and improve the safety of the surgery. It may be of great practical application value in the clinical field.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12957-019-1580-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Laparoscopic Repair of External Iliac-Artery Transection During Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Vascular injuries are the most common complication of pelvic lymph-node dissection. We report a case of total division of the external iliac artery and its immediate laparoscopic repair.

METHODS

A 70-year-old man with a prostatic adenocarcinoma (Gleason Score 6) and serum prostate specific antigen concentration of 20 ng/mL had inadvertent external iliac-artery transection during pelvic lymphnode dissection secondary to the abnormal course and anatomy of the artery. Immediate laparoscopic repair was accomplished with a two-needle single-knot technique as is routinely used for the vesicourethral anastomosis. Thereafter, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy was completed.

RESULTS

The reconstruction time was 37 minutes. There was no significant blood loss. There were no further intraoperative complications. Postrepair, the femoral pulse was intact, and follow-up duplex color ultrasonography showed good flow. The patient was disharged home on day 7, ambulant and asymptomatic.

CONCLUSION

In controlled cicumstances, laparoscopic repair of external iliac-artery transection is feasible and represents a safe alternative to open surgery.

Nefrectomía radical laparoscópica

In this article, we review the different surgical approaches to carry out radical laparoscopic nephrectomy: transperitoneal approach, retroperitoneal approach and hand-assisted approach. We describe the advantages and drawbacks of each alternative and summarize the most important references in the medical literature. In spite of this being a relatively new surgical approach, less than 15 years old, it has become a standard treatment and, today, is considered as the elective surgical treatment for T1 and T2 renal tumours in many centres.

Taking the side of transperitoneal access for surgery in upper urinary tract

Laparoscopic surgery has become a preferred treatment option for the management of upper urinary tract pathology. Large series of complex urologic operations have been published, with favorable outcomes. Although the early experience with urologic laparoscopy consisted almost exclusively of transperitoneal procedures, some surgeons prefer the retroperitoneal approach. The debate of retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal laparoscopy for upper tract pathology is complex because comparative and randomized studies are lacking. In contrast to the retroperitoneal approach, transperitoneal laparoscopic procedures allow for a larger working space, adequate maneuverability, and the presence of familiar anatomic landmarks. This article highlights our experiences and approaches to major laparoscopic upper urinary tract surgery for benign and malignant conditions. A summary of the published literature as it pertains to the transperitoneal approach also is presented.

Vena caval transection during retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy: report of the complication and review of the literature

PURPOSE

Major vascular injuries are uncommon but serious complications of laparoscopic surgery. Early recognition and conversion to an open procedure may be required to avoid further complications. We report 2 cases in which the vena cava was transected during retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy, and review the literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All urological laparoscopic cases from 1993 to 2002 at 2 institutions were reviewed to identify major vessel transection. Two cases of inadvertent transection of the vena cava were identified. Medical records were reviewed for clinical and pathological information to identify factors leading to this complication. A MEDLINE search was performed to identify similar reports in the literature.

RESULTS

Two patients at 2 institutions were identified with vena caval transection during retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy. In both cases the vena cava was misidentified as a renal vein. The injury was recognized immediately in both cases and an open repair was performed by vascular surgery. Both patients recovered with no sequelae. In both cases a rotated camera on an angled laparoscope in addition to the relative lack of retroperitoneal landmarks may have contributed to a loss of orientation within the operative field. A similar report of an aortic transection was also found in the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Disorientation of the operating surgeon within the surgical field secondary to rotation of the camera lens and lack of retroperitoneal landmarks may contribute to vena caval transection during retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy. This injury has not been found in transperitoneal nephrectomy, likely because more intra-abdominal landmarks exist, aiding in maintenance of orientation. Prompt intraoperative recognition and repair of the transection results in a favorable outcome.