The effect of kidney morcellation on operative time, incision complications, and postoperative analgesia after laparoscopic nephrectomy

Laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy versus conventional laparoendoscopic nephrectomy for kidney tumor: a systematic review and meta-analysis

With the increasing application of laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy (LESS-N) in kidney tumor, accumulating studies compared it with conventional laparoendoscopic nephrectomy (CL-N). However, controversial outcomes were reported. Hence, this meta-analysis was carried out to clarify these issues. Online databases PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched comprehensively for eligible studies published before 24 July 2018. Odds ratios (ORs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were collected for evaluating the pooled results of relevant outcomes. Ultimately, 13 eligible articles were enrolled. Meanwhile, compared with CL-N, LESS-N was related to a longer operation time (SMD: 0.40; 95% CI, 0.23–0.58; P=0.000), a shorter length of hospital stay (LOS) (SMD: −0.32; 95% CI, −0.62 to −0.02; P=0.034), a lower visual analog scale (VAS) score (SMD: −0.89; 95% CI, −1.22 to −0.56; P=0.000) and a lower analgesic requirement (SMD: −0.55; 95% CI, −0.87 to −0.23; P=0.001). There was no statistical difference in the postoperative day of oral intake, estimated blood loss (EBL), conversion rate, perioperative complications, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, minor complications and major complications between LESS-N and CL-N. Patients with LESS-N for kidney tumor could have a longer operation time and shorter LOS, and meanwhile could need less analgesics and suffer less pain after LESS-N.

Robotic Surgery for Malignant Liver Disease: a Systematic Review of Oncological and Surgical Outcomes

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery is yet another modification of minimally invasive liver surgery. It is described as feasible and safe from the surgical point of view; however, oncological outcomes need to be adequately analysed to justify the use of this technique when resecting malignant liver tumours. We reviewed existing English medical literature on robot-assisted laparoscopic liver surgery. We analysed surgical outcomes and oncological outcomes. We analysed operative parameters including operative time, type of hepatectomy, blood loss, conversion rate, morbidity and mortality rates and length of stay. We also analysed oncological outcomes including completeness of resection (R status), recurrence, survival and follow-up data. A total of 582 patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic liver surgery were analysed from 17 eligible publications. Only 5 publications reported survival data. The overall morbidity was 19% with 0.2% reported mortality. R0 resection was achieved in 96% of patients. Robotic liver surgery is feasible and safe with acceptable morbidity and oncological outcomes including resection margins. However, well-designed trials are required to provide evidence in terms of survival and disease-free intervals when performed for malignancy.

Comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site and multiport laparoscopic radical and partial nephrectomy: a prospective, nonrandomized study

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively compare outcomes of laparoendoscopic single-site and multiport laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and partial nephrectomy, focusing on postoperative pain and analgesic requirement.

METHODS

Nonrandomized, prospective comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site and multiport laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and partial nephrectomy. Thirty-four patients underwent laparoendoscopic single-site (17 radical nephrectomy/17 partial nephrectomy); 42 underwent multiport laparoscopy (28 radical nephrectomy/14 partial nephrectomy) from February 2009 to February 2010. Laparoendoscopic single-site transperitoneal access was obtained by periumbilical incision through which all trocars were inserted. Laparoendoscopic radical nephrectomy/partial nephrectomy recapitulated steps of multiport laparoscopic radical nephrectomy/partial nephrectomy. Demographics/tumor characteristics, outcomes, and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

Forty-two of 42 multiport laparoscopic and 32/34 laparoendoscopic single-site cases were successfully performed. Mean follow-up was 16.2 months. For laparoendoscopic single-site and multiport laparoscopy groups mean operating room time (min) was 159.3 vs 158.9 (P = .952); mean estimated blood loss (mL) was 175.7 vs 156.1 (P = .553); percent transfused was 2.9% vs 0% (P = .925). No significant differences in complications were noted (P = .745). Significant decrease in analgesic use (6 morphine equivalents vs 11.6, P < .001) and discharge pain score (1.7 vs 2.7, P < .01) were noted in laparoendoscopic single-site vs multiport laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. For laparoendoscopic single-site partial nephrectomy and multiport laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, no significant differences were noted for tumor diameter (1.8 vs 2.0 cm, P = .57), RENAL score (0.962), ischemia time (28.6 vs 27.5 minutes, P = .70), and preoperative (P = .78)/postoperative creatinine (P = .32). For laparoendoscopic single-site radical nephrectomy and multiport laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, no significant differences were noted for mean tumor diameter (5.6 vs 5.3 cm, P = .63), RENAL score (P = .815), and mean operative time (142.3 vs 155.4 minutes P = .13).

CONCLUSION

In this well-matched, prospective comparison, laparoendoscopic single-site is comparable with multiport laparoscopic surgery in terms of perioperative parameters and may confer benefit with respect to analgesic requirement. Randomized evaluation and longer-term follow-up are necessary.

Laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery for radical and cytoreductive nephrectomy, renal vein thrombectomy, and partial nephrectomy: a prospective pilot evaluation

Introduction. Laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) may diminish morbidity of laparoscopic surgery. We prospectively evaluated feasibility and outcomes of LESS-Radical Nephrectomy (LESS-RN) and Partial Nephrectomy (LESS-PN). Methods. 10 patients underwent LESS-RN (6) and LESS-PN (4) between 2/2009-5/2009. LESS-RN included 2 with renal vein thrombectomy, one of which was also cytoreductive. Transperitoneal LESS access was obtained by periumbilical incision. Patient/tumor characteristics, oncologic, and quality of life (QoL) outcomes were analyzed. Results. 3 Men/7 Women (mean age 58.7 years, median follow-up 9.8 months) underwent LESS. 9/10 cases were completed successfully. All had negative margins. Mean operative time was 161 minutes, estimated blood loss was 125 mL, and incision size was 4.4 cm. Median tumor size for LESS-RN and -PN was 5.0 and 1.7 cm (P = .045). Median LESS-PN ischemia time was 24 minutes; mean preoperative/postoperative creatinine were 0.7/0.8 mg/dL (P = .19). Mean pain score at discharge was 1.3. Mean preoperative, 3-, and 6-month postoperative SF-36 QoL Score was 73.8, 74.4 and 77.1 (P = .222). All patients are currently alive. Conclusions. LESS-RN, renal vein thrombectomy, and PN are technically feasible and safe while maintaining adherence to oncologic principles, with excellent QoL preservation and low discharge pain scores. Further study is requisite.