Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with intra-abdominal manipulation

Long-term outcome of hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for T1 renal cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the long-term outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy compared with those of open nephrectomy.

METHODS

Hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy was carried out in 132 patients with T1 renal cell carcinoma (between November 1999 and November 2008). Their outcomes were compared with those of 61 patients treated with open nephrectomy. The durations of follow up were 6-121 months (median 65 months) and 7-146 months (median 84 months) in the hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and open nephrectomy groups, respectively.

RESULTS

The 7-year recurrence-free rates were 88.5 and 85.6% in the hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and open nephrectomy groups, respectively, showing no significant difference between the two groups. The 7-year cancer-specific survival rates were 92.3 and 91.4% in the hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and open nephrectomy groups, respectively, showing no significant difference between the two groups. Also, the 10-year recurrence-free rates were 85.4 and 78.1% in the hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and open nephrectomy groups, respectively. When changes in the recurrence-free rate were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, no significant difference was observed between the two groups. The 10-year cancer-specific survival rates were 91.8 and 87.9% for hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and open nephrectomy, respectively, showing no significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy might be comparable with open nephrectomy with regard to long-term cancer control.

Devices for hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery

A number of tools have been introduced to make laparoscopy easier. Some, such as 3D video systems, are interesting, and may add a modicum of benefit in some situations, but overall, have not had substantial impact. Others, such as robotic surgery, clearly have great potential, but are simply too expensive for widespread use. A few, such as the argon beam coagulator, are helpful only in particular situations. One technique has lived up to its billing and moreover, can be applied in almost any laparoscopic procedure, it is cost effective and actually does make laparoscopy easier. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery is a useful adjunct to the laparoscopic surgeon, and should be considered by all interested in this endeavor. This review summarizes the current hand-assistance devices and their use.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy to treat clinically localized renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

To evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy (HARRN) for treating clinically localized renal cell carcinoma.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected and analyzed the data and clinical outcomes of 46 patients who underwent HARRN and 50 patients who underwent conventional open radical nephrectomy (ORN) at our institution for clinical localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

RESULTS

The median follow-up period of the HARRN group was 56.5 months (range: 14.6-78.7 months); for the ORN group, the median follow-up period was 110.8 months (range: 15.5-123 months). Patient age, sex, body mass index, pathologic parameters, and classification based on the guidelines of the American Society of Anesthesiologists were not significantly different between the two groups. The HARRN group had a significantly longer operative time (218 minutes vs. 178 minutes, p = 0.003) and less blood loss (203 mL vs. 670 mL, p < 0.001). The complication rates of the ORN and HARRN groups were similar (8% and 4.3%, respectively, p = 0.46). No conversions to an open procedure or intraoperative mortality occurred in the HARRN group. The disease-free and disease-specific survival rates were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The results of our study indicate that HARRN is a feasible, minimally invasive treatment for managing clinically organ-confined RCC with a good long-term oncological outcome.

Conversion from pure laparoscopy to hand-assisted laparoscopy for control of bleeding in renal surgery: an attractive alternative to open conversion

PURPOSE

To assess the safety and efficacy of conversion from pure laparoscopy to hand-assisted laparoscopy to control mild-to-moderate bleeding during renal surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between August 2006 and August 2008, we performed 94 laparoscopic nephrectomies (44 partial and 50 radical). A total of three radical nephrectomies were converted from pure to hand-assisted laparoscopy for control of bleeding. The first patient was a 44-year-old man with a 14-cm cystic renal mass. The second patient was a 52-year-old man with a 3.8-cm renal mass, and the third patient was an 86-year-old woman with a 7-cm renal mass.

RESULTS

In all three procedures, the indication for conversion was bleeding from the renal hilum or the kidney parenchyma during dissection. The bleeding was difficult to control using pure laparoscopy, and therefore a hand port was inserted. Time for conversion and placement of the hand port averaged less than 7 minutes. Total estimated blood loss for the three patients was 800 mL, 2000 mL, and 650 mL, respectively. One patient needed a transfusion with three units of packed red blood cells. The postoperative course was uneventful in all patients, except for one patient who had prolonged ileus and stayed in the hospital for 6 days. The remaining two patients were discharged on postoperative days 2 and 3.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion from pure to hand-assisted laparoscopy for bleeding control is feasible and effective. It adds minimal morbidity while maximizing cosmesis, and it should be considered as an alternative to open conversion in cases of mild-to-moderate bleeding.

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

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.

MATERIALS 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.

Robotic control in hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy in humans - a pilot study

Computer-assisted surgical devices, including laparoscopic surgical robotic arms, can be used in urologic surgery to minimize trauma. In this study, we explored the feasibility and applicability of using a robotic arm, AESOP (Computer Motion Inc, Goleta, CA), as a substitute for surgical assistants during hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomies in humans. Four patients (3 men and 1 woman, mean age 66 years) underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy. The hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy was completed successfully in all patients. The average operative time, estimated blood loss, and time to hospital discharge was 252.5 minutes, 0.57 ml, and 4.5 days, respectively. Postoperative satisfactory function was confirmed through laboratory tests, imaging exams and biochemical tests. No complications were reported for any of the patients. Parameters, such as the operative time, are expected to be further reduced when more experience with the use of the robot has been acquired. In conclusion, robotic-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy is feasible and safe, and can be performed without complications. The potential long-term cost effectiveness of using robotic surgical assistants in laparoscopic surgery highlights the economic impact of this research and warrants further investigation.

Oncologic Outcome of Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the oncologic outcome of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy (HALS) with that of open radical nephrectomy.

METHODS

The clinical and follow-up data of 123 patients with localized renal cell carcinoma who underwent HALS were retrospectively compared with those of 70 patients who underwent open radical nephrectomy.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in operating time, complication rates, or transfusion rates between the HALS and open groups. The estimated blood loss was significantly less in the HALS group. The median follow-up period was 41.0 months for the HALS group, significantly shorter than that for the open group (74.5 months). The 3 and 5-year disease-free survival rate for the HALS and open groups was 94% and 92% and 93% and 91%, respectively. The 3 and 5-year cancer-specific survival rate for the HALS and open groups was 96% and 92% and 98% and 94%, respectively. No significant differences were found in the disease-free and cancer-specific survival rates between the two groups. In the HALS group, no significant differences were found in the disease-free survival rate between those undergoing surgery by less-experienced surgeons who had performed laparoscopic nephrectomy on 10 cases or less and those undergoing surgery by more experienced surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

The oncologic outcome of HALS did not differ much from that of the open approach. Also, the experience of the surgeon did not affect the oncologic outcome. However, extended follow-up is necessary to assess the true oncologic efficacy of HALS.

Conventional and Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy: Comparative Analysis of 271 Cases

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes of patients undergoing conventional laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (CLRN) and hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (HALRN) at our institution.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We prospectively and retrospectively reviewed the files of consecutive patients who underwent HALRN (N = 158 patients) from April 2001 to May 2005 and CLRN (N = 113) from August 2002 to May 2005 for clinical stage T(1-3)N(0-1)M(0-1) renal-cell carcinoma. Clinical and perioperative variables of the two groups were compared. Patients were well matched with regard to baseline parameters except that patients undergoing CLRN were 8 years older (P < 0.001) and had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists scores (P = 0.001).

RESULTS

Significantly different outcomes were faster operative time (P < 0.001), greater use of narcotic analgesia (P < 0.001), and longer hospitalization (P < 0.001) with HALRN. For the other variables analyzed, including blood loss, incision size, and complication rates, the two approaches were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of a retrospective study, HALRN was a faster operation than CLRN but was associated with greater use of narcotic analgesia and longer hospitalization. Overall, the similarities between these two approaches outnumber the differences, some of which may be explained by surgeon-specific practices. Both modalities offer patients excellent immediate cancer control while minimizing perioperative morbidity.

Prevention and management of complications in urological laparoscopic port site placement

OBJECTIVES

To review complications associated with urological laparoscopic port-site placement and outline techniques for their prevention and management.

METHODS

Review of the literature using Medline.

RESULTS

Laparoscopy now plays a key role in urological surgery. Its applications are expanding with experience and evolving data confirming equivalent long-term outcome. Although significant port-site complications are uncommon, their occurrence impacts significantly on perioperative morbidity and rate of recovery. The incidence of such complications is inversely related to surgeon experience. Ports now utilise bladeless tips to reduce the incidence of vascular and visceral injuries, and subsequently port-site herniation. Metastases occurring at the port site are preventable by adhering to certain measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Whether performing standard or robot-assisted laparoscopy, port-site creation and maintenance is critical in ensuring minimal invasiveness in laparoscopic urological surgery. Although patient factors can be optimised perioperatively and port design continues to improve, it is clear that adequate training is central in the prevention, early recognition, and treatment of complications related to laparoscopic access.

Laparoscopic Nephroureterectomy with Bladder-Cuff Resection: Techniques and Outcomes

Advancements in minimally invasive instrumentation and technique have provided the impetus to performing urologic procedures with reduced perioperative morbidity, shorter hospital stays, and, most importantly, efficacious oncologic results. At multiple centers of excellence, laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LNU) has evolved into a new standard for the management of upper-tract transitional-cell carcinoma (TCC) that is not amenable to endoscopic resection. An LNU may be performed via a transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach together with excision of the distal ureter and a bladder cuff. Analysis of present-day studies comparing LNU with open techniques demonstrates equivalent oncologic outcomes. In addition, those patients undergoing LNU fare better than their counterparts having open surgery with respect to hospital stay, analgesic requirements, and convalescence. With multiple options for excision of a cuff of bladder, a consensus has not been established. However, LNU has emerged as the new standard of care for the treatment of upper- tract TCC. Review of the techniques and outcomes of LNU from the minimally invasive urology community are described.

Trocar Arrangement for HALS

The appropriate position of the hand-access device and trocars for hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery depends on several factors, including the surgeon's preference, physical stature, and handedness; the patient's anatomy; and the type of procedure being performed. This article reviews the options, including measures for special circumstances such as patient obesity.

Hand-Assisted Retroperitoneoscopic Radical Nephrectomy and Nephroureterectomy

In laparoscopic operations for renal tumor and upper urinary-tract transitional-cell carcinoma (TCC), three approaches - the transperitoneal, retroperitoneal, and transperitoneal hand-assisted - have been reported. We have performed hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy (RN) since 1999 and nephroureterectomy (NU) since 2000. The surgical techniques and the operative results of 95 cases of RN and 54 cases of NU are described and analyzed. These procedures were effective and safe for renal tumors and upper urinary-tract TCC.

Comparison of Gas-less laparoscopy-assisted surgery, hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and pure laparoscopic surgery for radical nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

We report our experience with Gas-less laparoscopy-assisted surgery (Gas-less LAS), hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and pure laparoscopic surgery (LS) for renal carcinoma and compare the characteristics and usefulness of these methods.

METHODS

Seventeen, 14 and 16 patients were subjected to Gas-less LAS, HALS and LS, respectively. The study started with Gas-less LAS and then gradually shifted to HALS and LS. We evaluated the operative and postoperative parameters for each group. The learning curve effect was evaluated based on data from the first 10 cases of each group, which were operated on by the same surgeon and operation team.

RESULTS

The learning curve of operation times in the LS group demonstrated that the operation time for this procedure is acceptable even in early-stage cases. Differences in mean operative time between the three surgical groups, excluding the conversion cases, were not statistically significant; however, there was a significant difference in blood loss volume between the groups (P </= 0.001). Operation time tended to be shorter in Gas-less LAS and the frequency of parental analgesia administration tended to be reduced in the LS group when compared to the other two groups. Of the total 47 patients treated, two cases were converted to open surgery. The major postoperative complication was one case of brain infarction in the HALS group. One patient in the LS group developed a lung metastasis 11 months after the operation.

CONCLUSION

As minimally invasive operative techniques, these three methods do not differ significantly in terms of surgical outcome; however, LS tended to be slightly superior in terms of postoperative pain control and cosmetic appearance.

The advantages of hand-assisted laparoscopy

The technical challenges of performing laparoscopic renal surgery require fellowship training and are associated with a steep learning curve. For the established urologist in practice, fellowship training is not a reality. As a result of these obstacles, in the late 1990s, laparoscopic renal surgery was entering the domain of the general surgeons who had a large number of laparoscopic procedures at their disposal to develop laparoscopic skills. Hand-assisted laparoscopic renal surgery is a hybrid procedure combining the most salient features of open renal surgery and laparoscopic renal surgery. By allowing the surgeons to place their non-dominant hand into the abdominal cavity, palpation and spatial orientation became possible, lessening the learning curve for laparoscopic surgery. Moreover, hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery could be applied to a variety of renal surgeries, extirpative and reconstructive, with results similar to those already achieved by standard laparoscopy. Throughout the past 5 years, hand-assisted laparoscopy has allowed urologists to incorporate laparoscopic renal surgery into their practices to the benefit of their patients and of their specialty. This review article offers a historical review of the development of hand-assisted laparoscopy and describes the procedures commonly performed today using this technique.

Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy: initial experience

OBJECTIVES

To report our initial experience of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy for stage T1 renal tumors.

METHODS

The clinical data on 22 consecutive patients who had undergone hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy and 22 who had undergone open radical nephrectomy were reviewed. The operation was performed with a hand placed retroperitoneally through a pararectal longitudal 7-7.5 cm incision using a LAP DISC.

RESULTS

The total operating time was between 2.3 and 5.8 h (mean: 3.4 h). The estimated blood loss was between 15 and 650 mL (mean: 170 mL). The complication rate was 9% (2/22). No conversions to open procedure occurred. In comparison to open radical nephrectomy, the operating time was similar (3.4 vs 3.9 h) whereas the estimated blood loss was significantly less in this procedure (170 vs 495 mL). During the convalescence period the patients revealed significantly less postoperative pain, shorter intervals to resuming oral intake and more rapid return to normal activities compared to the open radical nephrectomy patients.

CONCLUSION

Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy is an effective and safe procedure for T1 renal tumors.

Technical advances in laparoscopy: hand assistance, retractors, and the pneumodissector

Technology is crucial to the laparoscopic surgeon. Reducing the technical difficulty of laparoscopic procedures is beneficial on many fronts: training is facilitated, operative time is reduced, and the practice of minimally invasive surgery can be further disseminated. Many advances in urologic laparoscopic surgery are attributable to the development of new operative instruments that reduce the technical difficulty. In this article, we highlight three technical advances in laparoscopy. Hand assistance can simplify many laparoscopic procedures. Because the surgeon retains tactile sensation, operative times are reduced compared with standard laparoscopic surgery, with minimal, if any, increase in patient morbidity. Other advances in instrumentation include various laparoscopic retractors and the Pneumodissector, a unique dissecting device. The breadth of retractors extends from reusable metal "fans" to disposable inflated "paddles," with many in between. The metal retractors may be more traumatic to delicate tissues than the inflatable ones but also are more versatile. The Pneumodissector facilitates tissue dissection by releasing short burst of carbon dioxide. It is a safe and effective instrument for blunt tissue dissection. These technical advances have contributed to the progression of laparoscopic urologic procedures. Technology will continue to have a significant impact on the advancement of laparoscopic urology and its potential widespread dissemination.