How Many Cases Are Necessary to Develop Competence for Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy?

Laparoscopic nephrectomy simplified - A "two-window technique" for safer approach to hilum for a novice

Though the overall safety of laparoscopic nephrectomy (simple or radical) is well established, for a novice it remains a challenge. The classical description of laparoscopic nephrectomy entails dissection either from caudal to cephalad side or vice versa. Herein we describe our "two window technique" for managing renal hilum during laparoscopic (simple/radical) nephrectomy. Our main intention in description of this technique is to reduce the level of apprehension for a novice urologist for performing laparoscopic nephrectomy. After colon mobilization, sequential lower and upper windows are created around the hilum following which hilar vessels are dissected circumferentially when the hilum is at a stretch by traction from either of the window. There are multiple potential advantages of this method which includes easier and safer dissection especially for novice in this field by giving a safety window of application of vascular clamp in cases of vascular bleeds. Intrahilar dissection in stretched condition becomes safer with vision from all around 360° for safe application of Hem-o-lok® clips. Due to the widely exposed field, injuries to adrenal vein and lumbar veins would be minimized and the chances of missed accessory vessel would be minimized. En mass hilar control with vascular clamp in cases of partial nephrectomy is possible with same approach as well as the en block stapling is feasible in cases of nephrectomy. This needs a validation across multiple centers with comparative studies before considering it as a standard of practice. We sincerely believe that this is safe and easily reproducible by a novice.

Should oncological cases of upper urinary system be excluded at the beginning of the laparoscopic learning curve?

Purpose:

The place of oncological cases of upper urinary system in the laparoscopic learning curve was investigated.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 139 patients from two different centers underwent laparoscopic operations and were included in this retrospective study.

Results:

Mean operative times for oncological, and non-oncological cases were 101.3 (range 60-450), and 102.7 (45-490) minutes respectively. Fourty-two (31.3 %) patients were oncological cases. In 4 oncological cases, the surgeons switched to open surgery because of massive bleeding and six (14.2 %) oncological cases required blood transfusions during peri/postoperative periods. Pulmonary embolism was observed in one oncological case. In one non-oncological case, the surgeon switched to open surgery because of intestinal perforation and 10 (9.7 %) non-oncological cases needed blood transfusions during peri/postoperative periods. In addition, some complications such as intestinal perforation (n=1), mechanical ileus (n=1), and pulmonary embolism (n=1) were observed during postoperative period. Intestinal perforation was repaired using laparoscopic (n=1) method. Mechanical ileus was approached with open surgical technique. Mean hospital stay of the patients in the oncological and non-oncological series were 4.5 (3-23) and 4.5 (3-30) days respectively.

Conclusion:

We think that renal oncological cases should be included in the spectrum of laparoscopic indications even at the beginning of the learning curve. Certainly, we still share the opinion that cancer cases which require highly challenging surgeries like radical cystectomy, and prostatectomy should be postponed till to gaining of higher level of experience.

Does robotic assistance confer an economic benefit during laparoscopic radical nephrectomy?

PURPOSE

While robotic assisted radical nephrectomy is safe with outcomes and complication rates comparable to those of the pure laparoscopic approach, there is little evidence of an economic or clinical benefit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From the 2009 to 2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample database we identified patients 18 years old or older who underwent radical nephrectomy for primary renal malignancy. Robotic assisted and laparoscopic techniques were noted. Patients treated with the open technique and those with evidence of metastatic disease were excluded from analysis. Descriptive statistics were performed using the chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests, and the Student t-test. Multiple linear regression was done to examine factors associated with increased hospital costs and charges.

RESULTS

We identified 24,312 radical nephrectomy cases for study inclusion, of which 7,787 (32%) were performed robotically. There was no demographic difference between robotic assisted and pure laparoscopic radical nephrectomy cases. Median total charges were $47,036 vs $38,068 for robotic assisted vs laparoscopic surgery (p <0.001). Median total hospital costs for robotic assisted surgery were $15,149 compared to $11,735 for laparoscopic surgery (p <0.001). There was no difference in perioperative complications or the incidence of death. Compared to the laparoscopic approach robotic assistance conferred an estimated $4,565 and $11,267 increase in hospital costs and charges, respectively, when adjusted for adapted Charlson comorbidity index score, perioperative complications and length of stay (p <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic assisted radical nephrectomy results in increased medical expense without improving patient morbidity. Assuming surgeon proficiency with pure laparoscopy, robotic technology should be reserved primarily for complex surgeries requiring reconstruction. Traditional laparoscopic techniques should continue to be used for routine radical nephrectomy.

Transperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in a patient with severe scoliosis

OBJECTIVE

To report the first case of a left transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy in a patient with a severe left convex lumbar scoliosis and to elaborate on the technical difficulties of this procedure.

METHODS

The surgical procedure was performed by an experienced laparoscopic surgeon after rigorous pre-operative visualization of the altered visceral and vascular abdominal anatomy. A transperitoneal laparoscopic approach with an open introduction technique according to Hasson and a caudo-cranial dissection of the left renal hilum were performed to prevent major vascular and visceral injury in this challenging surgical procedure.

RESULTS

The operation time was 102 minutes and the estimated blood loss was 100 mL. The surgeon was able to complete the transperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy without complications.

CONCLUSION

Transperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in patients with severe spinal deformities is feasible, but should only be performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons to ensure patient safety and cancer control.