Mini-laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy with the use of 3-mm instruments and laparoscope

How to dissect the pelvic nerves: from microanatomy to surgical rules. An evidence-based clinical review

Background: Advanced gynaecological procedures often include extensive pelvic dissections, with the nervous structures involved in the disease. Nerve-sparing and preservation is a key factor in reducing postoperative morbidity. Objectives: The goal of this review is to describe in detail the structure of the pelvic nerves and to gather information from other surgical specialties to give recommendations for safe nerve dissection applied in different gynaecological subspecialties. Materials and methods: An extensive literature review was carried out in PubMed and Google Scholar. The search included articles concerning peripheral nerve anatomy, mechanisms of injury and different dissection techniques, with the most exhaustive being analysed for the review. Articles from different fields of medicine like orthopaedics, plastic surgery, maxillofacial surgery dealing with peripheral nerve injuries and repair have been reviewed. Results: The following review demonstrates the in-depth anatomy and mechanism of injury of the peripheral nerves, describes the different techniques for neurolysis and proposes some directions for safe nerve dissection. Conclusion: When performing complex gynaecological surgeries, the surgeon should avoid unnecessary nerve handling, apply nerve-sparing techniques whenever possible and use the new devices to preserve the nervous structures. Advanced gynaecological surgeries should be performed in specialised centres by expert surgeons with comprehensive knowledge in neuropelveology. What is new? To our knowledge, this is the first article focused on peripheral nerves that collects data from such a wide range of specialties in order to propose the most comprehensive recommendations that could be applied in pelvic surgery.

Evolution of Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy Techniques and Outcomes: A Single-Center Experience with More than 1000 Cases

Background

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has evolved and has been established as a surgical standard of care for kidney transplantation.

Material/Methods

This study retrospectively reviews 1132 patients who underwent 4 different laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomies: hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HALDN), pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (PLDN), laparoendoscopic single-site plus 1-port donor nephrectomy (LESSOP-DN), and mini laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (MLDN).

Results

The mean estimated blood loss (EBL) for the HALDN group was meaningfully higher than those of LESSOP-DN and MLDN (57.5±52.2 mL versus 21.0±30.0 mL versus 18.2±28.7 mL) (P<0.001). The EBL for PLDN (53.3±35.3 mL) was also significantly higher than those of LESSOP-DN and MLDN (P<0.001). Length of stay (LOS) for HALDN was longer than that for LESSOP-DN (4.2±1.2 day versus 4.0±1.4 days, P=0.002). There was 1 intraoperative open conversion in the HALDN group and 2 HALDN surgeries that required postoperative exploratory laparotomy. LESSOP-DN had 3 (0.8%) postoperative incisional hernias. For recipients, the results revealed no significant differences between all 4 groups in terms of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and the 1-year graft failure rate.

Conclusions

The LESSOP-DN group was associated with a shorter incision length than those of HALDN and PLDN and shorter LOS than that of HALDN. Recipient results showed no meaningful difference regarding laparoscopic donor nephrectomy technique.

Minilaparoscopy in urology: Systematic review

CONTEXT

There has been a boom in recent years in urological procedures using minilaparoscopy (ML).

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of the published evidence on ML and its current role in urology.

ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE

We performed a search on MedLine spanning October 1983 to December 2016 according to PRISMA criteria. A total of 6 comparative articles and 13 series were selected for this manuscript.

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

Only 1 study was randomised, 4 studies were prospective and comparative, and most were case series in which the operations were performed with 3-mm instruments. The most common procedures were adrenalectomy, followed by nephrectomy, living donor and pyeloplasty. Other minor conditions were also operated on, including cyst decortications, pyelolithotomies, lymphadenectomies, varicocelectomies and orchiectomies.

DISCUSSION

There have been significant technical improvements in recent years in the materials of ML. Most procedures were for reconstructive surgery and by transperitoneal approach, with a gradually increasing number of cases of oncologic surgery. Only 36.8% of the series assessed the cosmetic results with validated questionnaires, and 68.4% of the studies used the visual analogue scale to measure pain during the postoperative period.

CONCLUSIONS

The level of evidence of most published studies is low. ML is a reproducible technique for urological surgery and is safe even for operations on large surgical masses. The procedure's cosmetic and pain results after surgery are superior to those of conventional laparoscopy, although these conclusions should be taken with caution given the limitations of the current studies.