PURPOSE: Laparoscopic nephron sparing surgery has been reported rarely, likely due to technical difficulty when using only laparoscopic instrumentation. Hand assisted techniques may facilitate the procedure in select cases while maintaining the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. We prospectively compared the laparoscopic with selective hand assistance and open surgical approaches to nephron sparing surgery for suspected malignancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared our initial 10 laparoscopic nephron sparing procedures for suspected malignancy, including 8 with hand assistance, in 9 patients (11 tumors) with 11 consecutive open surgical procedures for similar indications. Standard laparoscopic technique was used in cases of an exophytic mass with shallow penetration into the parenchyma. Otherwise hand assistance was used. Recovery data were obtained prospectively using self-administered questionnaires. RESULTS: Although mean operative time was 24% greater in the laparoscopic group, recovery was more favorable than in the open surgical group, as evidenced by 62% less parenteral narcotic use, 43% shorter hospital stay, 64% more rapid return to normal nonstrenuous activity, and improved pain and physical health scores 2 and 6 weeks postoperatively. In each group mean lesion diameter was 2.4 cm., 8 of 11 neoplasms were malignant and no margins were positive for malignancy. There were no conversions to open surgery and no major complications in the laparoscopic group. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic nephron sparing surgery appears to have an advantage over open surgery in terms of patient recovery. Facilitation by hand assistance may make laparoscopic nephron sparing surgery a more widely available, minimally invasive alternative to open surgery for small, favorably located renal tumors.
PURPOSE: Laparoscopic nephron sparing surgery has been reported rarely, likely due to technical difficulty when using only laparoscopic instrumentation. Hand assisted techniques may facilitate the procedure in select cases while maintaining the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. We prospectively compared the laparoscopic with selective hand assistance and open surgical approaches to nephron sparing surgery for suspected malignancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared our initial 10 laparoscopic nephron sparing procedures for suspected malignancy, including 8 with hand assistance, in 9 patients (11 tumors) with 11 consecutive open surgical procedures for similar indications. Standard laparoscopic technique was used in cases of an exophytic mass with shallow penetration into the parenchyma. Otherwise hand assistance was used. Recovery data were obtained prospectively using self-administered questionnaires. RESULTS: Although mean operative time was 24% greater in the laparoscopic group, recovery was more favorable than in the open surgical group, as evidenced by 62% less parenteral narcotic use, 43% shorter hospital stay, 64% more rapid return to normal nonstrenuous activity, and improved pain and physical health scores 2 and 6 weeks postoperatively. In each group mean lesion diameter was 2.4 cm., 8 of 11 neoplasms were malignant and no margins were positive for malignancy. There were no conversions to open surgery and no major complications in the laparoscopic group. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic nephron sparing surgery appears to have an advantage over open surgery in terms of patient recovery. Facilitation by hand assistance may make laparoscopic nephron sparing surgery a more widely available, minimally invasive alternative to open surgery for small, favorably located renal tumors.
Authors: William B DeVoe; Kent W Kercher; William W Hope; Amy E Lincourt; H James Norton; Chris M Teigland Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-10-02 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Yair Lotan; Matthew T Gettman; Guy Lindberg; Cheryl A Napper; John Hoopman; Margaret S Pearle; Jeffrey A Cadeddu Journal: JSLS Date: 2004 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.172