Possible impact of continuous drainage after minimally invasive partial nephrectomy

A case of postoperative pancreatitis in patients with renal cell carcinoma with an inferior vena cava tumor thrombus treated by presurgical lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab

Pancreatic injury is a rare, but noted complication of nephrectomy. We report a case involving a 56-year-old man who presented with cT3bN0M0 left locally advanced renal cell carcinoma with an inferior vena cava thrombus. Nephrectomy with thrombectomy was performed given the remarkable shrinkage of the primary tumor and thrombus following lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab administration. The patient developed postoperative pancreatitis associated with unrecognized minor pancreatic injury, which was treated conservatively. To our knowledge, this has been the first case that underwent nephrectomy for RCC with an IVC thrombus after presurgical lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and received conservative treatment for postoperative pancreatitis.

Analysis of risk factors affecting the postoperative drainage after a laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a retrospective study

Purpose

Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) remains the most commonly used measure for treating localized renal cell cancer (RCC) with an increasing incidence of RCC ever since the 1990s. This study aimed to identify risk factors that affect the postoperative time of drainage and total drainage volume after LPN.

Method

The clinical data of 612 RCC patients who received LPN from January 2012 to December 2022 in our hospital, including the postoperative drainage time and total drainage volume, were retrospectively analyzed. Univariable and multivariable linear regression and correlation analyses were used to identify the correlations between 21 factors, which include gender, age, history of alcohol consumption, family history of RCC, body weight, body mass index (BMI), and operation time, postoperative drainage time, and total drainage volume.

Results

The mean time of drainage was 3.52 ± 0.71 days (range: 2 to 8 days), with an average total drainage volume of 259.83 ± 72.64 mL (range: 50 to 620 mL). Both univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses revealed several statistically significant associations. Gender (p = 0.04), age (p = 0.008), smoking history (p < 0.001), diabetes (p = 0.032), operation time (p = 0.014), and BMI (p = 0.023) were identified as significant factors associated with the time of drainage. On the other hand, age (p = 0.008), smoking history (p < 0.001), diabetes (p = 0.006), and BMI (p = 0.016) emerged as independent risk factors influencing the total drainage volume.

Conclusion

The duration of postoperative drainage was found to be associated with gender, age, smoking history, diabetes, operation time, and BMI. In contrast, the total drainage volume was primarily influenced by age, smoking history, diabetes, and high BMI following LPN. For patients with these conditions, meticulous attention to hemostasis and bleeding control is crucial during the perioperative period.

Should a Drain Be Routinely Required After Transperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy?

Introduction: Closed drains have traditionally been placed after partial nephrectomy because of risks of bleeding and urine leak. We sought to study the safety of a nonroutine drain (NRD) approach after transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). Patients and Methods: From a multi-institutional database, we have analyzed the data of 904 patients who underwent RPN. Five hundred forty-six (60.40%) patients underwent RPN by a surgeon who routinely placed drains. Three hundred fifty-eight (39.60%) patients underwent RPN by a surgeon who did not routinely placed drains. Perioperative outcomes, length of stay (LOS), and readmission rates were compared between the two groups. Baseline characteristics, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes were compared using Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test. Results: Patients in the NRD group were more likely to have higher body mass index (30.10 kg/m² vs 28.07 kg/m²; P < 0.001), higher tumor size (3.0 cm vs 2.5 cm; P = 0.001), and higher renal score (8 vs 7; P < 0.001). Rate of transfusion (0.00% NRD vs 0.56% RD; P = 0.157) and overall complication (7.33% NRD vs 7.82% RD; P = 0.782) were comparable. Median hospital stay is 1 day for both groups. Readmission rate was also similar (0.55% NRD vs 1.40% RD; P = 0.279). In a multivariable analysis, NRD approach was associated with shorter length of hospital stay (incidence rate ratio [IRR] - 0.72, P < 0.001). Conclusion: An NRD approach for RPN yielded a decreased LOS and similar perioperative outcomes. Placement of surgical drains should be based on individual circumstances, and not required on a routine basis.

Prophylactic abdominal or retroperitoneal drain placement in major uro-oncological surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies on radical prostatectomy, cystectomy and partial nephrectomy

PURPOSE

To systematically analyze the impact of prophylactic abdominal or retroperitoneal drain placement or omission in uro-oncologic surgery.

METHODS

This systematic review follows the Cochrane recommendations and was conducted in line with the PRISMA and the AMSTAR-II criteria. A comprehensive database search including Medline, Web-of-Science, and CENTRAL was performed based on the PICO criteria. All review steps were done by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool for randomized trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

The search identified 3427 studies of which eleven were eligible for qualitative and ten for quantitative analysis reporting on 3664 patients. Six studies addressed radical prostatectomy (RP), four studies partial nephrectomy (PN) and one study radical cystectomy. For RP a reduction in postoperative complications was found without drainage (odds ratio (OR)[95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.62[0.44;0.87], p = 0.006), while there were no differences for re-intervention (OR[CI]: 0.72[0.39;1.33], p = 0.300), lymphocele OR[CI]: 0.60[0.22;1.60], p = 0.310), hematoma (OR[CI]: 0.68[0.18;2.53], p = 0.570) or urinary retention (OR[CI]: 0.57[0.26;1.29], p = 0.180). For partial nephrectomy no differences were found for overall complications (OR[CI]: 0.99[0.65;1.51], p = 0.960) or re-intervention (OR[CI]: 1.16[0.31;4.38], p = 0.820). For RC, there were no differences for all parameters. The overall-quality of evidence was assessed as low.

CONCLUSION

The omission of drains can be recommended for standardized RP and PN cases. However, deviations from the standard can still mandate the placement of a drain and remains surgeon preference. For RC, there is little evidence to recommend the omission of drains and future research should focus on this issue.

REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER (PROSPERO)

CRD42019122885.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: Urology

Enhanced recovery after surgery programs were developed as a type of standardized evidence-based perioperative care protocols. The necessity and benefit of clinical care pathways is not a new phenomenon in urology and have been a big part of the evolution of care for urology patients, especially in terms of urologic oncology. This article discusses the key components of evidence-based perioperative care in key urologic procedures. These protocols have been shown to decrease length of stay, decrease complications, and reduce cost.