A New Concept for Minimally Invasive Surgical Treatment in Renal Cancer: The Use of Neuroaxial Anesthesia During Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy

A new concept for minimally invasive treatment involves abdominal laparoscopic surgery performed while the patient breathes independently without losing consciousness. Here we report the first series of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) performed under neuroaxial anesthesia (NA). From May 2021 to September 2022 we prospectively enrolled selected patients with an organ-confined single renal mass to undergo LPN under NA. Anesthesia was administered using an epidural catheter placed at the level of T7, with additional anesthesia at the level of T10. The rationale was to avoid use of a tracheal tube and the side effects of general anesthesia. Ten patients were enrolled in the study. Targeted sedation was achieved in all cases. In one case, a switch to general anesthesia was needed because of patient anxiety. Food intake started at 12 h after surgery in 9/10 cases; mobilization started from 3 h after surgery. The length of hospital stay was 3 d in 4/10 cases and 4 d in 3/10 cases. This first experience worldwide of LPN performed under NA demonstrates the feasibility and safety of the procedure.

Transperitoneal vs retroperitoneal minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: comparison of perioperative outcomes and functional follow-up in a large multi-institutional cohort (The RECORD 2 Project)

BACKGROUND

Aim of this study was to evaluate and compare perioperative outcomes of transperitoneal (TP) and retroperitoneal (TR) approaches in a multi-institutional cohort of minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MI-PN).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All consecutive patients undergone MI-PN for clinical T1 renal tumors at 26 Italian centers (RECORd2 project) between 01/2013 and 12/2016 were evaluated, collecting the pre-, intra-, and postoperative data. The patients were then stratified according to the surgical approach, TP or RP. A 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching was performed to obtain homogeneous cohorts, considering the age, gender, baseline eGFR, surgical indication, clinical diameter, and PADUA score.

RESULTS

1669 patients treated with MI-PN were included in the study, 1256 and 413 undergoing TP and RP, respectively. After 1:1 PS matching according to the surgical access, 413 patients were selected from TP group to be compared with the 413 RP patients. Concerning intraoperative variables, no differences were found between the two groups in terms of surgical approach (lap/robot), extirpative technique (enucleation vs standard PN), hilar clamping, and ischemia time. Conversely, the TP group recorded a shorter median operative time in comparison with the RP group (115 vs 150 min), with a higher occurrence of intraoperative overall, 21 (5.0%) vs 9 (2.1%); p = 0.03, and surgical complications, 18 (4.3%) vs 7 (1.7%); p = 0.04. Concerning postoperative variables, the two groups resulted comparable in terms of complications, positive surgical margins and renal function, even if the RP group recorded a shorter median drainage duration and hospital length of stay (3 vs 2 for both variables), p < 0.0001.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that both TP and RP are feasible approaches when performing MI-PN, irrespectively from tumor location or surgical complexity. Notwithstanding longer operative times, RP seems to have a slighter intraoperative complication rate with earlier postoperative recovery when compared with TP.