Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy for Very Large Renal Tumors (≥10 cm): Is There a Size Limit?

Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for large-volume renal carcinoma (> 7 cm): a systematic review and pooled analysis of comparative outcomes

BACKGROUND

Recently, there has been a significant amount of debate concerning the question of whether laparoscopic surgery should be performed transperitoneally or retroperitoneally for treating large renal tumors.

AIM

The purpose of this research is to conduct a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of the previous research on the safety and efficacy of transperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (TLRN) and retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (RLRN) in the treatment of large-volume renal malignancies.

METHODS

An extensive search of the scientific literature was carried out utilizing PubMed, Scopus, Embase, SinoMed, and Google Scholar in order to locate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective and retrospective studies that compared the effectiveness of RLRN versus TLRN in the treatment of for large renal malignancies. For the purpose of comparing the oncologic and perioperative outcomes of the two techniques, data were taken from the research studies that were included and pooled together.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies (five RCTs and nine retrospective studies) were incorporated into this meta-analysis. The overall RLRN had an association with significantly shorter operating time (OT) (MD [mean difference]: - 26.57; 95% CI [confidence interval]: - 33.39 to - 19.75; p < 0.00001); less estimated blood loss (EBL) (MD: - 20.55; CI: - 32.86 to - 8.23; p = 0.001); faster postoperative intestinal exhaust (MD: - 0.65; CI: - 0.95 to - 0.36; p < 0.00001). The terms of length of stay (LOS) (p = 0.26), blood transfusion (p = 0.26), conversion rate (p = 0.26), intraoperative complications (p = 0.5), postoperative complications (p = 0.18), local recurrence rate (p = 0.56), positive surgical margin (PSM) (p = 0.45), and distant recurrence rate (p = 0.7) did not show any differences.

CONCLUSIONS

RLRN provides surgical and oncologic results similar to TLRN, with potential advantages regarding shorter OT, EBL, and postoperative intestinal exhaust. Due to the high heterogeneity among the studies, long-term randomized clinical trials are required to obtain more definitive results.

Pure retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and thrombectomy with delayed occlusion of the proximal inferior vena cava (DOPI) technique for renal tumor with level II-III venous tumor thrombus

Purpose

To explore the safety and effectiveness of delayed occlusion of the proximal inferior vena cava (DOPI) technique in retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) and thrombectomy for renal tumor with level II-III venous tumor thrombus (VTT).

Materials and methods

From August 2016 to October 2018, a total of 145 patients with renal tumor and VTT were admitted to our centre. Seventy-five patients underwent laparoscopic surgery, and 70 patients underwent open surgery. Among these patients, 17 patients underwent retroperitoneal LRN and thrombectomy with the DOPI technique. Clinical data were collected retrospectively, and a descriptive statistical analysis was conducted.

Results

All the patients successfully underwent retroperitoneal laparoscopic surgery. The mean operation time was 345.9 ± 182.9 min, the mean estimated blood loss was 466.7 ± 245.5 ml. Postoperative complications occurred in three patients, including two patients of Clavien grading system level IVa and one patient of level II. There were no complications related to carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum, such as gas embolism, acidosis, and subcutaneous emphysema. During 21 months of median follow-up time, no local recurrence was found, and distant metastasis occurred in four patients. Cancer-specific death occurred in two patients.

Conclusions

The DOPI technique is safe and feasible in the treatment of renal tumor and level II-III VTT. With the DOPI technique, the procedures of dissociating and exposing proximal inferior vena cava are simplified.

Minimally invasive radical nephrectomy: a contemporary review

Minimally invasive renal surgery has revolutionized the surgical management of renal cancer since the initial report of laparoscopic nephrectomy in 1991. Laparoscopic nephrectomy became the mainstay of management in surgically resectable renal masses since the 1990s. The growing body of literature supporting nephron-sparing surgery over the last two decades has meant that minimally invasive radical nephrectomy (MI-RN) is now the preferred treatment for renal tumors not amenable to partial nephrectomy. While there is a well-described experience with complex radical nephrectomy using standard laparoscopy, robot-assisted surgery has shortened the learning curve and facilitated greater uptake of minimally invasive surgery in difficult surgical scenarios traditionally performed open surgically. Increased experience and expertise with robot-assisted renal surgery has led to expansion of the indications for MI-RN to include larger masses, locally advanced renal masses invading adjacent tissues or regional hilar/retroperitoneal lymph nodes, cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in metastatic disease, and concurrent venous tumor thrombectomy for renal vein or inferior vena cava (IVC) involvement. In this article, we review the various surgical techniques and adjunctive procedures associated with MI-RN.

Two-handed assisted laparoscopic surgery: Evaluation in an animal model

PURPOSES

To evaluate in an animal model the feasibility of a novel concept of hand-assisted surgery consisting of inserting two hands into the abdomen instead of one. The chosen procedure was retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (L-RPLND) that was performed in five pigs.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

A Pfannestiel and a transverse epigastric incisions were made through which both hands were introduced. The scope was inserted through the umbilicus. The colon was moved medially and the dissection was performed as in open surgery using short conventional surgical instruments.

COMMENTS

The surgery was fulfilled easily and safely in quite a similar way as in open surgery. Two-handed laparoscopy may be indicated in cases that still today require an open approach as apparently makes the operation easier and significantly shortens the surgery time. However, new opinions and trials are required.

Is there a financial disincentive to perform partial nephrectomy?

PURPOSE

Despite the explicit endorsement of the American Urological Association guidelines of partial nephrectomy as the treatment of choice for T1a renal cell carcinoma, a considerable underuse of nephron sparing surgery characterizes general practice patterns in the United States. We explored possible financial disincentives associated with partial nephrectomy that may contribute to this important quality of care deficit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A PubMed® query on perioperative outcomes identified 10 series on open or laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and 16 on open, laparoscopic or robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Mean operative time and hospital length of stay were calculated for each group. Using these data in conjunction with Health Care Financing Administration data on physician work time, which guides the current Resource-Based Relative Value Scale Medicare fee schedule, we calculated global physician time expenditure and hourly Medicare reimbursement rates for each of these 5 surgical services.

RESULTS

Mean±SD operative time for open and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, and open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy was 180.7±24.7 minutes (95% CI 119.3-242.0) in 3 studies, 178.8±16.5 (95% CI 163.5-194.1) in 7, 226.0±36.9 (95% CI 187.2-264.8) in 6, 227.9±40.2 (95% CI 185.8-270.1) in 6 and 227.9±37.8 (95% CI 167.7-288.1) in 4, respectively (p=0.028). Mean length of stay (days) after open and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, and open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy was 5.8±0.7 days (95% CI 4.0-7.7) in 3 studies, 2.5±1.1 (95% CI 1.4-3.6) in 6, 5.8±0.4 (95% CI 5.3-6.2) in 5, 2.9±0.3 (95% CI 2.6-3.3) in 6 and 2.8±1.0 (95% CI 1.2-4.4) in 4, respectively (p<0.001). The hourly reimbursement rate was calculated at $200.61, $242.03, $185.66, $231.27 and $231.97 for open and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, and open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy, respectively. Hence, open partial nephrectomy emerged as the lowest paying of these procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Inferior compensation for open partial nephrectomy relative to that of laparoscopic or open radical nephrectomy may impede the dissemination of nephron sparing surgery for small renal masses. This may occur particularly in a general practice setting, where the expertise required for laparoscopic or robot-assisted partial nephrectomy may be lacking. We propose rectifying this inequity to facilitate wider use of nephron sparing surgery in the clinically appropriate setting.