OBJECTIVES: To compare, retrospectively, the results of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) to open partial nephrectomy (OPN) using a tumor size-matched cohort of patients. Limited data are available comparing LPN to OPN in the treatment of small renal tumors. METHODS: Between September 2000 and September 2003, 27 LPNs and 22 OPNs were performed to treat renal masses less than 4 cm. Patient demographics and tumor location and size (2.4 +/- 1.0 cm versus 2.9 +/- 0.9 cm, respectively; P = not statistically significant) were similar between the LPN and OPN groups. RESULTS: Although the mean operative time was longer in the LPN than in the OPN group (210 +/- 76 minutes versus 144 +/- 24 minutes; P <0.001), the blood loss was comparable between the two groups (250 +/- 250 mL versus 334 +/- 343 mL; P = not statistically significant). No blood transfusions were performed in either group. The hospital stay was significantly reduced after LPN compared with after OPN (2.9 +/- 1.5 days versus 6.4 +/- 1.8 days; P <0.0002), and the postoperative parenteral narcotic requirements were lower in the LPN group (mean morphine equivalent 43 +/- 62 mg versus 187 +/- 71 mg; P <0.02). Three complications occurred in each group. With LPN, no patient had positive margins or tumor recurrence. Also, direct financial analysis demonstrated lower total hospital costs after LPN (4839 dollars+/- 1551 dollars versus 6297 dollars+/- 2972 dollars; P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: LPN confers several benefits over OPN concerning patient convalescence and costs, despite prolonged resection times at our current phase of the learning curve. Long-term results on cancer control in patients treated with LPN continue to be assessed.
OBJECTIVES: To compare, retrospectively, the results of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) to open partial nephrectomy (OPN) using a tumor size-matched cohort of patients. Limited data are available comparing LPN to OPN in the treatment of small renal tumors. METHODS: Between September 2000 and September 2003, 27 LPNs and 22 OPNs were performed to treat renal masses less than 4 cm. Patient demographics and tumor location and size (2.4 +/- 1.0 cm versus 2.9 +/- 0.9 cm, respectively; P = not statistically significant) were similar between the LPN and OPN groups. RESULTS: Although the mean operative time was longer in the LPN than in the OPN group (210 +/- 76 minutes versus 144 +/- 24 minutes; P <0.001), the blood loss was comparable between the two groups (250 +/- 250 mL versus 334 +/- 343 mL; P = not statistically significant). No blood transfusions were performed in either group. The hospital stay was significantly reduced after LPN compared with after OPN (2.9 +/- 1.5 days versus 6.4 +/- 1.8 days; P <0.0002), and the postoperative parenteral narcotic requirements were lower in the LPN group (mean morphine equivalent 43 +/- 62 mg versus 187 +/- 71 mg; P <0.02). Three complications occurred in each group. With LPN, no patient had positive margins or tumor recurrence. Also, direct financial analysis demonstrated lower total hospital costs after LPN (4839 dollars+/- 1551 dollars versus 6297 dollars+/- 2972 dollars; P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS:LPN confers several benefits over OPN concerning patient convalescence and costs, despite prolonged resection times at our current phase of the learning curve. Long-term results on cancer control in patients treated with LPN continue to be assessed.
Authors: S I Tyritzis; A Kyroudi; E Liatsikos; T Manousakas; P Karayannacos; N Kostomitsopoulos; A Zervas; K Pavlakis; J-U Stolzenburg; C Constantinides Journal: World J Urol Date: 2007-09-26 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Jacob M McClean; Kent W Kercher; Nicole A Mah; Marc Zerey; B Todd Heniford; Pierce B Irby; R Tucker Burks; Carol Weida; Chris M Teigland Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-07-02 Impact factor: 4.584
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