Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: how far have we gone?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Several technical modifications of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy have resulted in a reduction of complications and warm ischemia time. The most recent results are reviewed with a focus on oncologic outcome and postoperative renal function.

RECENT FINDINGS

The indications for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy are the same as for open surgery. All tumors up to 4 cm should be included and selected tumors up to 7 cm may be considered as well. In experienced hands, the complication rate is considerably low. Oncologic outcome is comparable with open partial nephrectomy and 5-year survival data have been published recently. Long warm ischemia time may be of some concern. The published functional results are excellent. Cost should not be the main argument in favor of a method. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, however, combines advantages for the patient with lower cost as shown by two studies.

SUMMARY

Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy duplicates the principles of open surgery and has been standardized to a great extent. It is technically difficult and is being performed by a small number of centers only; however, the interest of the urologists and patient demand is growing quickly. At the present time, laparoscopic partial nephrectomy cannot be considered a standard of care, but excellent results have been reported when performed by experienced laparoscopists.

Financial Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Nephrectomy in the Pediatric Age Group

The authors compared the cost of laparoscopic nephrectomy to open nephrectomy in the pediatric age group. One hundred seventeen consecutive laparoscopic nephrectomies performed by a surgeon with extensive experience with this approach between April 2003 and August 2006 were included. A control group of 24 consecutive open nephrectomies performed by urologists who do not use the laparoscopic approach were also included. Inclusion criteria for surgery were a poor or nonfunctioning kidney related to severe obstructive or refluxing nephropathy and a multicystic dysplastic kidney. The length of operation, length of stay, and disposable equipment used were recorded and the different approaches were compared statistically with an unpaired t test. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) duration of the procedure was 79 minutes (32) in the laparoscopic group and 85 minutes (35) in the control group (P = 0.41). The mean (SD) cost of the disposable instruments used during the operation was pounds sterling274 (160) in the laparoscopic group and pounds sterling20 (5) in the control group (P = 0.0001). The mean (SD) hospital stay was 1 night (0.43) with a mean (SD) cost of pounds sterling677 (291) in the laparoscopic group, and 3 nights (2) with a mean (SD) cost of pounds sterling2031 (1354) in the control group (P = 0.0001). The mean (SD) total cost of the procedure was pounds sterling951 (451) for the laparoscopic group and pounds sterling2051 (1359) for the open one (P = 0.0001). In our experience, the laparoscopic approach in the pediatric age group is 54% less expensive than the open approach.

Cost effectiveness of laparoscopic versus mini-incision open donor nephrectomy: a randomized study

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness remains an issue surrounding the introduction of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN).

METHODS

In a randomized controlled trial the cost-effectiveness of LDN versus mini-incision open donor nephrectomy (ODN) was determined. Fifty donors were included in each group. All in-hospital costs were documented. Postoperatively, case record forms were sent to the donors during 1-year follow-up to record return-to-work and societal costs. To offset costs against quality of life, the Euroqol-5D questionnaire was administered preoperatively and 3, 7, 14, 28, 90, 180, and 365 days postoperatively.

RESULTS

Mean total costs were euro6,090 (US$7,308) after LDN and euro4,818 ($5,782) after ODN (P<0.001). Disposables influenced the cost difference most. Mean productivity loss was 68 and 75 days after LDN and ODN respectively, corresponding to euro783 ($940) gained per donor after LDN. The main gain in quality of life in the LDN group was realized within 4 weeks postoperatively. LDN resulted in a mean gain of 0.03 quality-adjusted life years at mean costs of euro1,271 ($1,525) and euro488 ($586) from a healthcare perspective and a societal perspective, respectively. This implies that one additional Quality-Adjusted Life Year after LDN costs about euro16,000 ($19,200) from a societal point of view and about euro41,000 ($49,200) from a health-care perspective. Activities other than work were resumed significantly earlier after LDN (66 vs. 91 days, P=0.01).

CONCLUSION

In addition to a clinically relevant donor-experienced benefit from LDN, this technique appeared, given a societal perspective, a cost-efficient procedure mainly due to less productivity losses.

Cost Analysis of Minimally Invasive Surgery in a Pediatric Setting

AIMS

The aims of this study was to determine whether an active policy of cost curtailment would impact on the theater cost of laparoscopic surgery in a pediatric setting; to document the extent of cost changes over time and to identify factors that adversely influence expenditure; and to investigate whether the surgeon is a significant factor in the price of the procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective audit of laparoscopic procedures was performed in a single unit over a 36-month period. Detailed costs of theater inventory for all procedures were compiled on a case-by-case basis and recorded on a database. The cost of six index procedures were collated and changes over the period of the study analyzed. The factors responsible for increased expenditure were flagged and appraised to enable the implementation of cost-saving measures. The prices of the laparoscopic equipment were based on invoiced figures provided by hospital managers, and no long-term outcome measures were taken into account.

RESULTS

A total of 179 cases were performed by six surgeons over a 3-year period between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2005, with no adverse intraoperative events. The procedures studied in further detail were appendicectomy (n = 50), fundoplication (n = 25), cholecystectomy (n = 12), nephrectomy (n = 10), Fowler Stevens for undescended testes (n = 10), and modified Palomo operations for varicocoele (n = 7). The mean cost of these procedures fell year by year over the period of study but was significant only in appendicectomy (P = 0.017). For this procedure, there was a significant difference in costs between the various surgeons (P = 0.007), but this trend was not noted with the other procedures. There were no major intraoperative events, although 2 patients required conversion owing to technical difficulties posed by the cases. Among the factors that influenced costs were the use of disposables, particularly for hemostasis and suctioning, and an inability to procure reuseable instruments.

CONCLUSIONS

The costs of commonly performed laparoscopic procedures are falling year by year. The surgeon is a factor in the costs of some procedures. A cost-saving strategy has not been compromised of patient safety; however, some cost-saving measures, though attractive, are labor intensive and are not practical. An overall commitment to the sensible use of health care resources translates into savings for hospitals, thereby strengthening the case for laparoscopic surgery.

[Opened vs. laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in renal adenocarcinoma cost comparison]

PURPOSE

To undertake a cost comparison (cost minimization) between transperitoneal laparoscopic and opened nephrectomy in renal adenocarcinoma treatment.

METHOD

Retrospective study on the first 26 patients submitted to LN without intra or postoperative complications in the period 2002-2003, using as control 22 patients treated with ON with the same characteristics and in the same period. Demographic variables were evaluated (age, sex, tumor size, etc.), intraoperative (operative time and fungible material used) and postoperative (length of stay in Postanaesthesic Care Unit, Acute Pain Unit needs and hospital stay). Our Hospital costs plus those imputed during year 2003 to the Urology Service, as well as the cost of fungible material for the same year were applied, carrying out a comparison of costs between both groups.

RESULTS

There were no differences between the demographic variables between both groups except in the tumor, bigger size in the opened nephrectomy (p=0,001). Transperitoneal laparoscopic was 29,4% globally more expensive than opened nephrectomy. The transperitoneal laparoscopic intraoperative cost (operating room, anesthesia and fungibles) the exceeded in 151,6% to that of the opened nephrectomy, whereas in the opened nephrectomy the postoperative cost was a 63 % higher than in the transperitoneal laparoscopic cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Transperitoneal laparoscopic in our Center is more expensive than opened nephrectomy due to a major occupation of operating room and that the specific fungible material used at the surgical act has a very high cost. It would be necessary to drastically reduce surgical time and decrease fungible material expenses, thus transperitoneal laparoscopic procedure could be competitive in our Hospital.

Comparative Financial Analysis of Minimally Invasive Surgery to Open Surgery for Small Renal Tumours ≤3.5cm: A Single Institutional Experience

OBJECTIVE

We analysed total hospital costs by comparing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) procedures, such as laparoscopic cryoablation (LCA), laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN), and hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HALN), with conventional surgery.

METHODS

Between March 2000 and July 2005, 184 consecutive patients underwent surgery for a small, organ-confined renal tumour < or =3.5 cm in diameter. The distribution of patients among the surgical procedures was: HALN (n=53); LPN (n=20); open radical nephrectomy (ORN; n=20); open partial nephrectomy (OPN; n=71); and LCA (n=20). Total hospital costs were analysed for each procedure.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing OPN at a mean age of 58+/-13 yr were significantly younger those undergoing HALN, ORN, and LCA. The mean hospital length of stay in the LCA group (2.0+/-1.2 d) was shorter than all other groups (p<0.05). Higher surgical costs occurred with LCA, LPN, and HALN compared (p<0.05) with ORN and OPN. However, total financial costs were lower for LCA and HALN with more obvious differences between LCA and the other four groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The costs of MIS remain competitive with traditional surgery. Although the surgical costs were higher, LCA had the lowest total hospital costs for the renal tumour < or =3.5 cm at our institution. Long-term oncologic efficacy studies will be needed to fully appreciate the cost-efficacy ratio of MIS.

Cost analysis of open, laparoscopic, and percutaneous treatment options for nephron-sparing surgery

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSES

A variety of nephron-sparing options exist for the management of small renal masses. The perioperative cost of open (OPN) and laparoscopic (LPN) partial nephrectomy, laparoscopic (LCA), and CT-guided percutaneous (PCA) cryoablation was compared using a detailed computer model.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The model incorporates operative time, consumables, anesthesia, CT usage, percutaneous biopsy, hospitalization, and transfusion expenses. Starting values were derived from a retrospective review of 317 patients treated at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions within the past 7 years. Hypothesis testing was performed with sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The PCA was 2.2 to 2.7 times less costly than the other options and resulted in a cost savings of $3625 to $5155 per case. For OPN, LPN, and LCA, the operative time and hospitalization accounted for 69% to 91% of the cost. In contrast, cryoprobe consumables were responsible for >70% of total cost of PCA. An OPN was 1.2x as costly as LPN and could achieve cost equivalence only with operative times of <2.8 hours or hospitalization of <3 days. An LCA was more costly than all forms of extirpative surgery if more than two cryoprobes were used. Reusing cryoprobes during LCA was always a less-costly option than adding a second cryoprobe to the procedure. The LCA was no longer cost advantageous over OPN if more than four CT scans were obtained during the first postoperative year or if local recurrence rates exceeded 23%.

CONCLUSIONS

This model defines and simplifies a series of complex cost relations between the options for nephron-sparing surgery.

Clinical research of renal vein control using Hem-o-lok clips in laparoscopic nephrectomy

Control of the renal vein represents a crucial step in laparoscopic nephrectomy. Although endovascular gastrointestinal anastomosis (GIA) staplers have generally been used for renal vein control because of the large diameter of the vessel, Hem-o-lok clips have recently been used for renal artery control. GIA staplers are expensive and can malfunction on rare occasions, resulting in severe complications. We evaluated renal vein control using Hem-o-lok clips (adaptive vascular width 7-16 mm) in laparoscopic nephrectomy. Since April 2004, we have ligated renal arteries using Hem-o-lok clips. From June 2004, this method was applied for renal vein control in 40 laparoscopic nephrectomies. After renal pedicle dissection, renal pedicle ligation was accomplished using extra large (XL) Hem-o-lok clips on both the renal arteries and veins by placing two clips on the patient side and one clip on the specimen side. Ligation times for obtaining renal vein control were compared between XL Hem-o-lok clips and GIA staplers in 40 cases before June 2004. Vascular control using XL Hem-o-lok clips was successful in all 40 cases, without any slipping of clips or uncontrolled bleeding. After renal pedicle dissection, ligation time for achieving renal vein control was 167.0 +/- 48 s (range: 122-295 s) using XL Hem-o-lok clips (mean, three clips) and 68 +/- 24.0 s (range: 54-150 s) using a GIA stapler. XL Hem-o-lok clips allow safe and reliable control of renal veins in laparoscopic nephrectomy. Ligation time is only 100 s longer than using a GIA stapler. In addition, costs are reduced by more than 90% compared to GIA stapling.

Cost Trends for Oncological Renal Surgery: Support for a Laparoscopic Standard of Care

PURPOSE

There may be inherent costs associated with the cultivation of laparoscopic expertise. We compared the cost trends for laparoscopy during the development of our program with that of open surgery for renal neoplasms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 381 patients treated surgically for renal cortical neoplasms from 1998 to 2003. Demographic information and cancer specific data were recorded on each subject. Direct variable costs, which are directly traceable to the patient care service provided and vary with patient volume, were used to analyze cost. Temporal trends were assessed using multivariate models developed to determine smoothed mean costs by year.

RESULTS

Although it was initially more expensive, by 2003 mean costs were lower for laparoscopic than for open radical nephrectomy ($5,157 vs $5,808). This reflected a significantly lower annual increase in direct variable costs for laparoscopy vs open surgery even after adjustment for patient age, sex, race and clinical stage (p = 0.013). Although a similar trend was observed when comparing nephron sparing procedures vs open surgery, this did not attain statistical significance. In addition to surgical technique, only higher clinical stage was independently associated with increased direct variable costs after adjustment for operative year (p <0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Relative to their open counterparts the costs of laparoscopic treatment of renal cortical neoplasms have increased at a lower rate in the last 6 years. When considered in the context of the well established benefits of laparoscopy, our findings lend additional support in favor of laparoscopy as the standard of care.

Cost Containment in Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy: Feasibility and Advantages over Open Radical Nephrectomy

PURPOSE

To highlight the impact of the laparoscopic experience of the surgical team on achievement of satisfactory results with cost containment in performing laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We compared the cost components of 15 consecutive uncomplicated LRNs performed in 2001 (LRN01) with 15 consecutive uncomplicated laparoscopic radical nephrectomies performed in 2003 (LRN03) and with 15 consecutive uncomplicated procedures performed at our institution by the same surgical team in the year 1999 matched for patient age, tumor size, and disease stage. The groups were comparable in demographics.

RESULTS

The operative times were 250, 225, and 195 minutes in the LRN01, LRN03, and open-surgery groups, respectively, while the lengths of postoperative stay were 3.8, 3.1, and 6.5 days. Operating room costs, excluding the disposable instruments, were 11.00 /min for the open surgery and 10.00 /min for laparoscopic nephrectomy, and the cost of the postoperative stay was 300 to 310 per day. The cost of disposable instruments was 952.18 for LRN01 and 146.37 for LRN03. The overall costs were 4155.00 for the open-surgery group, 4672.00 for LRN01, and 3336.37 for LRN03.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost containment in laparoscopic nephrectomy is possible. A proper team learning curve and the employment of reliable reusable instruments is the key to reducing costs, making this procedure as economically advantageous as the equivalent open procedure.

A cost-effective technique for pure laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

OBJECTIVE

Compare two different techniques for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN), related to the operative costs and learning curve.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between April/2000 and October/2003, 61 patients were submitted to LDN in 2 different reference centers in kidney transplantation. At center A (CA), 11 patients were operated by a pure transperitoneal approach, using Hem-O-Lok clips for the renal pedicle control and the specimens were retrieved manually, without using endobags. At center B (CB), 50 patients were also operated by a pure transperitoneal approach, but the renal pedicles were controlled with endo-GIA appliers and the specimens were retrieved using endobags.

RESULTS

Operative time (231 +/- 39 min vs. 179 +/- 30 min; p < 0.000), warm ischemia time (5.85 +/- 2.85 min vs. 3.84 +/- 3.84 min; p = 0.002) and blood loss (214 +/- 98 mL vs. 141 +/- 82 mL; p = 0.02) were statistically better in CB, when compared to CA. Discharge time was similar in both centers. One major complication was observed in both centers, leading to an open conversion in CA (9.1%). One donor death occurred in CB (2%). Regarding the recipients, no statistical difference was observed in all parameters analyzed. There was an economy of US$1.440 in each procedure performed in CA, when compared to CB.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the learning curve, the technique adopted by CA, showed no deleterious results to the donors and recipients when compared with the CB. On the other hand, this technique was cheaper than the technique performed in the CB, representing an attractive alternative for LDN, mainly in developing centers.

Outcome and cost analysis of laparoscopic or open surgery versus conservative management for multicystic dysplastic kidney

PURPOSE

To determine whether laparoscopic nephrectomy (LN), open nephrectomy (ON), or observation (OB) is most efficient for managing multicystic dysplastic kidney (MCDK).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of the management of our 12-year clinical experience of 32 MCDK patients to analyze the estimated total cost (ETC) of various treatment options and compare them with respect to survival, development of hypertension, and postoperative cosmetic appearance, to determine the most efficient treatment option.

RESULTS

There were 12 cases in the LN group, 6 in the ON group, and 14 in the OB group. ETC was lower for ON than for LN. But the length of preoperative observation and length of follow-up after spontaneous regression greatly affected ETC. If MCDK cases were observed > 5 years with standard investigations performed regularly, ETC was higher for the OB group than for the LN group. In 6/14 (42.9%) of OB cases, MCDK resolved within 5 years, and this subgroup had the lowest ETC up to the time of this review. Six cases initially in the OB group were managed surgically (4 by LN and 2 by ON) in accordance with parental requests, and ETC in these cases was highest. All cases are well after a mean follow-up of 5.7 years, without any impairment of renal function, or hypertension.

CONCLUSION

The decision to operate after lengthy observation increases costs. Overall, the most efficient surgical technique for managing MCDK was LN because of greater patient satisfaction with postoperative cosmesis. We recommend MCDK be treated by LN after a short period of observation.

Living Donor Kidney Transplant: Medicolegal and Insurance Aspects

Kidney transplantation is quite a routine complex procedure, not without risks and consequences to the donor, the recipient, and the health care professionals. Kidney-related medical malpractice suits are growing rapidly, and for clinicians and surgeons, the risk of being sued can be only reduced by practicing high-quality medicine and by appropriately communicating with donors and recipients. Actually relevant guidelines are available including safety and quality assurance standards for procurements, preservation, processing, and distribution for organs to maximize their quality and thereby the rate of success of transplants and to minimize the risk of such a procedure. We also find it essential that practice of living donor kidney transplant is in line with the general rules of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and its Additional Protocol. In this article, financial incentives and insurance aspects related with living donors kidney transplants are also illustrated.

A cost comparison of nephron-sparing surgical techniques for renal tumour

OBJECTIVE

To compare costs associated with open partial nephrectomy (OPN), laparoscopic PN (LPN) and percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRF) in consecutive patients undergoing nephron-sparing surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The charts and costs were reviewed for all 46 patients undergoing nephron-sparing PN at our institution from March 2003 to March 2004. Clinical characteristics, operative techniques, radiographic and pathological information were recorded. Detailed cost information for room and board, laboratory, pharmacy, radiology, operating room, surgical supplies, anaesthesia, recovery room, electrocardiography and respiratory services were obtained from our institution.

RESULTS

The hospital stay was significantly shorter for PRF (0.5 days) than either LPN (1.86) and OPN (4.94). PRF was statistically less costly than LPN and OPN, with mean (sd) costs of (US dollars) 4454 (938), 7013 (934) and 7767 (1605). There was no significant difference in cost between LPN and OPN. Surgical supply costs were significantly higher for LPN and PRF than OPN. LPN had less than a third of the room and board costs of OPN (P < 0.001). Decreases in room and board were also associated with lower pharmacy and laboratory costs.

CONCLUSIONS

PRF is significantly less costly than LPN and OPN; LPN is cost-equivalent to OPN as the shorter stay compensates for significantly higher surgical supply costs. In those patients with tumours of appropriate size and location, minimally invasive approaches can decrease the morbidity, with cost benefits.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy--an Iranian model for developing countries: a cost-effective no-rush approach

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate donor and graft outcome in kidney transplantations from laparoscopic donor nephrectomies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From June 2000 to June 2004, 341 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies were performed. Demographics and hospital records were reviewed. Mean ages of donors and recipients were 27.59+/-4.80 years (range, 20-56 years) and 35.36+/-14.85 years (range, 3-75 years).

RESULTS

Nephrectomy was left sided in 96.2%. Mean follow-up was 13.32+/-35.98 months. Mean warm ischemia time was 8.17 minutes (range, 2.5-19 minutes). Mean operative time was 260.34 minutes. Median serum creatinine levels (mg/dL) of the recipients were 1.30, 1.45, and 1.20 at day 7, and at 1 and 12 months. One-year graft survival was 92.7%, 94.6%, and 92.6% in the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy groups with warm ischemia times of less than 6, 6-10, and more than 10 minutes (P=NS). Conversion to open surgery occurred in 2.1% of donors, and reoperation was performed in 3.8% of laparoscopic donor nephrectomies. Blood transfusion was required in 7.1% of donors. Ureteral complications were observed in 2.1% of recipients. Vascular control was performed using medium-large clips instead of endo GIA, and the kidney was extracted via a suprapubic approach using the hand instead of an ENDOCATCH bag; hence, $600 was saved in each nephrectomy. No vascular accident occurred from pedicular vessels.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy can be performed with a less-expensive setup (to be expanded in developing countries) without jeopardizing results. Because warm ischemic time in our study did not affect graft outcome significantly, there appears to be no need to rush harvesting the kidney to achieve a better quality kidney. Vascular control using nonautomatic clips instead of more costly endo GIA and hand extraction of the kidney is safe, practical, and economical.

The case for living kidney sales: rationale, objections and concerns

Currently, potential kidney transplant candidates are dying on the waiting list. One potential solution would be a regulated system of living kidney sales (with safeguards to protect the vendor). Potential objections and practical concerns are discussed.

Laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy

OBJECTIVES

To compare, retrospectively, the results of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) to open partial nephrectomy (OPN) using a tumor size-matched cohort of patients. Limited data are available comparing LPN to OPN in the treatment of small renal tumors.

METHODS

Between September 2000 and September 2003, 27 LPNs and 22 OPNs were performed to treat renal masses less than 4 cm. Patient demographics and tumor location and size (2.4 +/- 1.0 cm versus 2.9 +/- 0.9 cm, respectively; P = not statistically significant) were similar between the LPN and OPN groups.

RESULTS

Although the mean operative time was longer in the LPN than in the OPN group (210 +/- 76 minutes versus 144 +/- 24 minutes; P <0.001), the blood loss was comparable between the two groups (250 +/- 250 mL versus 334 +/- 343 mL; P = not statistically significant). No blood transfusions were performed in either group. The hospital stay was significantly reduced after LPN compared with after OPN (2.9 +/- 1.5 days versus 6.4 +/- 1.8 days; P <0.0002), and the postoperative parenteral narcotic requirements were lower in the LPN group (mean morphine equivalent 43 +/- 62 mg versus 187 +/- 71 mg; P <0.02). Three complications occurred in each group. With LPN, no patient had positive margins or tumor recurrence. Also, direct financial analysis demonstrated lower total hospital costs after LPN (4839 dollars+/- 1551 dollars versus 6297 dollars+/- 2972 dollars; P <0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

LPN confers several benefits over OPN concerning patient convalescence and costs, despite prolonged resection times at our current phase of the learning curve. Long-term results on cancer control in patients treated with LPN continue to be assessed.