Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal masses >9.5 cm: Series comparison with open radical nephrectomy

Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy with Transperitoneal Approach for Large Renal Tumors: Standardized Surgical Technique and Outcomes

Background: Minimally invasive surgery is used only in selected cases of renal masses greater than 7 cm, and few studies exist in this setting. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a laparoscopic surgical approach for the treatment of large renal tumors using a standardized technique. Materials and Methods: Data of patients who underwent laparoscopic nephrectomy (LN) using the transperitoneal approach were retrospectively evaluated from December 2019 to September 2022. The study population was divided into two groups: patients with renal masses <7 cm (Group A) and those with renal masses ≥7 cm in diameter (Group B). The intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were compared. Results: Forty patients were enrolled (16 in Group A and 24 in Group B) in this study. Although significant difference in terms of age and American Society of Anesthesiologists score were detected, the two groups did not differ in mean operative time (130 minutes standard deviation [SD] ± 64 versus 148 minutes DS ± 56; P = .376), intraoperative complications (0% versus 8.3%; P = .508), need for postoperative transfusion (12% versus 12%; P > .999), and length of stay (3.38 DS ± 0.62 days versus 3.92 DS ± 2.47; P = .313). One patient had a local recurrence and died ∼13 months after surgery. Furthermore, 2 patients developed trocar-site incisional hernia in Group B. Conclusion: In this cohort of patients, LN for large renal tumors appeared to be safe and feasible. Larger mass dimension does not appear to influence the outcomes when the surgery is performed using a standardized technique by experienced surgeons.

Safety and oncological outcomes for large (stage ≥T2b) and locally advanced renal cell carcinoma: comparison between laparoscopic and modified hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy

Objective

To compare the operative and oncologic outcomes between hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (HALRN) and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) for large (stage ≥T2b) and locally advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Methods

We retrospectively collected data from patients who underwent HALRN or LRN for stage ≥T2b renal cell carcinoma from January 2011 to January 2018 in our institution. The patients’ demographics, perioperative parameters, and postoperative follow-up data were compared between the two groups. The survival outcome was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method.

Results

The HALRN group comprised 78 patients, and the LRN group comprised 63 patients. The median operative duration was significantly shorter in the HALRN than LRN group. The two groups were equivalent in terms of the incision length, blood loss, complication rate, and duration of hospitalization. In the HALRN and LRN groups, the 5-year overall survival rates were 69.4% and 73.1%, the 5-year cancer-specific survival rates were 80.0% and 83.3%, and the 5-year progression-free survival rates were 66.4% and 74.7%, respectively, with no significant differences.

Conclusions

Compared with LRN, HALRN may offer a shorter operative duration and equivalent surgical outcomes without sacrificing oncological efficacy. In addition, HALRN has specific advantages for extremely large and complicated renal tumors.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Radical Nephrectomy for Renal Cell Carcinoma: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to summarize and quantify the current evidence on the therapeutic efficacy of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) compared with open radical nephrectomy (ORN) in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in a meta-analysis.

METHODS

Data were collected by searching Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect for reports published up to September 26, 2016. Studies that reported data on comparisons of therapeutic efficacy of LRN and ORN were included. The fixed-effects model was used in this meta-analysis if there was no evidence of heterogeneity; otherwise, the random-effects model was used.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven articles were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that the overall mortality was significantly lower in the LRN group than that in the ORN group (odds ratio [OR] =0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.95). However, there was no statistically significant difference in cancer-specific mortality (OR=0.77, 95% CI: 0.55-1.07), local tumor recurrence (OR=0.86, 95% CI: 0.65-1.14), and intraoperative complications (OR=1.27, 95% CI: 0.83-1.94). The risk of postoperative complications was significantly lower in the LRN group (OR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.65-0.78). In addition, LRN has been shown to offer superior perioperative results to ORN, including shorter hospital stay days, time to start oral intake, and convalescence time, and less estimated blood loss, blood transfusion rate, and anesthetic consumption.

CONCLUSION

LRN was associated with better surgical outcomes as assessed by overall mortality and postoperative complications compared with ORN. LRN has also been shown to offer superior perioperative results to ORN.

LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL NEPHRECTOMY FOR RENAL TUMOR>7CM

(Objectives) Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) is now a standard care for the treatment of renal tumors, but the limitation of LRN for large tumors remains to be elucidated. In this study, we examined the safety and efficacy of LRN for >7 cm renal tumors including tumors >10 cm. (Patients and methods) From March 2001 to September 2014, 167 patients received laparoscopic surgery for renal tumors at our institution. Of these, 126 patients (≤4.0 cm: 64 cases, 4.1-7.0 cm: 40 cases, 7.1-10.0 cm: 12 cases, >10.0 cm: 10 cases) underwent LRN. Treatment outcomes including surgical and oncological outcomes among each stage were compared. (Results) Operating time for 7.1-10.0 cm tumors were similar to that <7 cm tumors but that for >10 cm tumors was significantly longer than that <10 cm tumors. There was no significant difference among each stage in terms of complication rate. As expected, recurrence-free survival rate for >10 cm tumors were worse than <10 cm tumors. (Conclusions) Our data suggests that LRN for large tumors >7 cm can be performed safely, but LRN for >10 cm tumors are technically demanding and require longer operation time.

Laparoendoscopic single-site radical nephrectomy for large renal masses

PURPOSE

To report our operative experience and short-term outcomes for the laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) management of large renal tumors and tumors of advanced stage.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Ten consecutive patients underwent LESS-radical nephrectomy (RN) for large (≥ 7 cm) and/or locally advanced tumors (>T(2)). Intraoperative, postoperative, and short-term follow-up data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Median surgical time was 146 minutes (range 73-164 min), and median estimated blood loss was 100 mL (range 25-400 mL). No procedure needed conversion to open RN or hand-assisted laparoscopic RN. The median hospital stay was 47 hours (range 42 hours-12 days). One (10%) patient had a minor complication (postoperative fever treated with antibiotics) and one (10%) patient had a major complication (small bowel obstruction necessitating reoperation). Of the 10 tumors, 2 were pathologic stage T(1b), 4 were pathologic stage T(2), and 4 were stage T(3a). At a median follow-up of 12.3 months (range 1-16 mos), six (60%) patients were alive without evidence of recurrence, and 4 (40%) patients were alive with disease. Of those four patients, all four had known metastatic disease before surgery.

CONCLUSION

LESS-RN for large or advanced stage renal masses is a technically challenging operation. In experienced hands, however, it is a safe and feasible therapeutic option for the management of these tumors.

[Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in big surgical specimens]

INTRODUCTION

The retroperitoneal surgery is the clearer indication for the laparoscopic approach. Still there are indications for open surgery because of the complexity of the patient and the surgeon experience.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective is to report our experience of laparoscopic radical nephrectomies in patient with tumors greater than 7 cm. or surgical specimens with more than 700 g of weight. We analyze their characteristics, complications rate, surgical time, postoperative outcome and hospital stay.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Since July 2004 to July 2008 we have performed 104 laparoscopic radical nephrectomies. We have selected 41 patients with characteristics of big surgical specimens.

RESULTS

The average surgical time has been of 184,3 min. Only 1 case has been converted into open surgery and only 1 intraoperative death because of cardiologic arrhythmia. The average hospital stay has been of 3,51 days. The complications rate and postoperative outcome are similar to the whole series.

DISCUSSION

Laparoscopic nephrectomy is technically less complex than radical prostatectomy. However, their possible complication implies a much bigger severity. The more complex cases must be approach laparoscopically only after a wide experience. Actually, in our department we usually indicate an open approach when surgical specimen crossover the abdominal middle line and in those cases where the tumoral thrombus affect the main renal vein and/or the vena cava.

[Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. Procedure, results, and complications]

Surgery is the treatment of choice for clear cell renal carcinoma not responding to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or immunotherapy. The surgical procedure used has evolved over time in the past 40 years, mainly because of the development and widespread use of diagnostic procedures such as ultrasonography and CT. As a direct consequence, parenchymal-sparing surgery was no longer only used for patients with solitary kidneys and its indication started to be extended to patients with tumors up to 4 cm in diameter, in whom it has been shown to be a safe and effective alternative to radical nephrectomy. The other important milestone in development of renal cancer surgery undoubtedly was the revolution started in the 90s with advent of laparoscopic renal surgery, which has become established over the past 20 years approximately. Laparoscopic surgery initially raised concern about oncological safety, but clinical series with sufficiently long follow-up times and large sample sizes are now available to consider the laparoscopic approach as a reliable procedure. Technological development has caused the laparoscopic technique to be no longer seen as a procedure for the future, but rather as an absolutely current technique which should be implemented in most urology departments. Implementation of any new procedure usually involves a number of complications which we should be prepared to assume, while making every effort to try and prevent them. It is therefore essential to develop, and to implement using common sense, a training program on the procedure. Selection of patients and conditions to be treated is a crucial part of such a program.

Oncological outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma: a single-institution study with >or=3 years of follow-up

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the intermediate-term outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (HALRN) for clinically organ-confined renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who had HALRN for clinically organ-confined RCC at the University of Wisconsin from 1996 to 2003. All patients with pathologically confirmed RCC and with >or=3 years of follow-up were included in a retrospective chart review of variables before, during and after HALRN, as well as the clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

In all, 75 patients had HALRN in the study period; their mean age was 59 years, body mass index 29 kg/m(2), operative duration 227 min, estimated blood loss 130 mL, and none required conversion to open nephrectomy. The median time to first oral intake was 2.5 days and the median hospital stay 4 days. On pathological examination the mean tumour size was 5.8 cm; 70% were pT1, 26% pT2 and 4% pT3; 82% were clear cell, 9% papillary, 8% chromophobe and 1% collecting duct carcinoma. Of the 65 patients who had a follow-up of >or=36 months (mean 46, range 36-117), the 3- and 5-year disease-free survival rate was 93.4% and 90.2%, respectively; the 3- and 5-year cancer-specific survival rate was 96.5% and 94.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that HALRN is a safe and minimally invasive treatment for managing clinically organ-confined RCC, with good intermediate-term oncological outcomes.

Laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy for large renal tumors: a long-term prospective comparison

PURPOSE

The role of laparoscopy in the management of large renal tumors (more than 7 cm) is not clearly established. We prospectively evaluated the feasibility, safety and long-term results of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for large renal tumors (T2N0M0) and compared the results with those of open radical nephrectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 1998 and 2006, 112 patients with clinical stage T2N0M0 renal carcinoma underwent radical nephrectomy at our institution. Clinical data were prospectively collected after categorizing the patients into group 1-41 with laparoscopy and group 2-71 with open surgery. The choice of procedure was nonrandomized and it depended on patient and surgeon preference and experience.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were contemporary and comparable in terms of age, body mass index and mean tumor size (9.9 and 10.1 cm, respectively). Concomitant adrenalectomy was performed in 14 patients (34%) in group 1 and in 29 (41%) in group 2. Limited (hilar) lymphadenectomy was performed in 30 patients (73%) in group 1 and in 58 (81%) in group 2. Group 1 patients experienced significantly less blood loss, and had a decreased analgesic requirement, shorter hospital stay and more rapid convalescence, although they required longer operative time (180.8 vs 165.3 minutes, p=0.029). The 2 groups were followed for a similar period (mean 51.4 vs 57.2 months) and there was no difference in 5-year survival data. There were no local or port site recurrences.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for clinical stage T2 renal tumors is effective with the advantages of less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, decreased analgesic requirement and rapid recovery compared with open radical nephrectomy. Long-term results are also similar in the 2 groups of patients. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for large tumors is a technically difficult, challenging procedure and it should be attempted by surgeons with significant experience.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy: Comparison with Conventional Open Radical Nephrectomy

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (HALRN) with those of open radical nephrectomy (ORN) for renal-cell carcinoma (RCC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 130 patients with stage T(1) or T(2) RCC with a maximum diameter < 10 cm underwent radical nephrectomy by HALRN (n = 63) or ORN (n = 67). Data from these two groups were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Although the maximum tumor size treated by HALRN was significantly less than that treated by ORN, there were no significant differences in the remaining features of the two groups. One HALRN was converted to open surgery. The mean operative time for HALRN (273 minutes) was significantly longer than that for ORN (189 minutes), whereas the mean estimated blood loss (315 v 381 mL). There were significant differences in measures of postoperative recovery, including time to walking (1.4 days for HALRN v 2.2 days for ORN), time to oral intake (1.8 v 3.3 days), and time to grant of permission for hospital discharge (7.4 v 10.2 days). Postoperative complications were observed in one and four patients in the HALRN and ORN groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in the recurrence-free and cancer-specific survival rates in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the longer operative time, HALRN represents an effective, safe, and less-invasive treatment option for RCC. If performed for the proper indications, HALRN could achieve cancer control similar to that available with ORN.

Expanding the indications for laparoscopic radical nephrectomy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy is an established treatment for patients with clinical T1 renal cell carcinoma who are unsuitable for nephron-sparing surgery. In this review we summarize the expanding indications for laparoscopic nephrectomy, including large tumors, locally advanced disease, venous thrombi and cytoreductive surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Laparoscopic nephrectomy remains the foremost conventional laparoscopic procedure in urologic surgery. Multiple studies have demonstrated the feasibility of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for stage T2 tumors, showing less morbidity and earlier return to activity compared to the open approach. Confirmation of durable oncologic control requires randomized prospective trials with longer follow-up. With growing experience, laparoscopic surgery has been extended to patients with renal cell carcinoma associated with limited local invasion and lymph node metastases. Experimental studies demonstrate the technical feasibility of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in the presence of renal vein and inferior vena cava thrombi. In well-selected patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, laparoscopic cytoreductive nephrectomy can be performed safely, with less morbidity than open nephrectomy.

SUMMARY

Minimally invasive surgery results in significantly less postoperative morbidity than does open surgery. The intermediate oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for advanced renal cell carcinoma are comparable to those historically achieved with open radical nephrectomy. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm survival equivalence.