OBJECTIVES: To compare laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and laparoscopic cryoablation (LC) for the management of small renal tumors located near the renal hilum. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who underwent LPN and LC. A total of 23 patients (12 LPN and 11 LC) had tumors located within 5 mm of the renal hilar vasculature. Patient data were retrospectively analyzed for specific parameters, including operative time, efficacy, morbidity, and postoperative course. RESULTS: All 23 cases were successfully completed laparoscopically. The mean operative time for LPN and LC was 2.8 hours and 2.3 hours, respectively (P = 0.03). The mean estimated blood loss was 197 mL for LPN and 70 mL for LC (P < 0.01). The analgesic requirement for those undergoing LPN and LC was 29 mg morphine equivalent and 23 mg morphine equivalent, respectively (P = 0.41). The hospital stay for patients in the LPN and LC groups was 3.9 days and 3.2 days respectively (P = 0.55). No intraoperative complications occurred in either group. Six patients experienced nine complications in the LPN group. The complications included hemorrhage in 1, fever in 1, ileus in 1, urinary tract infection in 1, urine leak in 4, and transient postoperative neuropathy in 1. The LC group had no postoperative complications. In the LC cohort, no disease recurrence developed during the 11.3 months of follow-up. No positive margins were found in the LPN cohort, and with a mean follow-up of 12 months, none have developed recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: LPN for hilar tumors is a reasonable surgical option but carries an increased risk of urine leak. LC for hilar tumors has a shorter operative time and results in significantly fewer postoperative complications. Long-term follow-up data for both techniques remain unavailable.
OBJECTIVES: To compare laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and laparoscopic cryoablation (LC) for the management of small renal tumors located near the renal hilum. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who underwent LPN and LC. A total of 23 patients (12 LPN and 11 LC) had tumors located within 5 mm of the renal hilar vasculature. Patient data were retrospectively analyzed for specific parameters, including operative time, efficacy, morbidity, and postoperative course. RESULTS: All 23 cases were successfully completed laparoscopically. The mean operative time for LPN and LC was 2.8 hours and 2.3 hours, respectively (P = 0.03). The mean estimated blood loss was 197 mL for LPN and 70 mL for LC (P < 0.01). The analgesic requirement for those undergoing LPN and LC was 29 mg morphine equivalent and 23 mg morphine equivalent, respectively (P = 0.41). The hospital stay for patients in the LPN and LC groups was 3.9 days and 3.2 days respectively (P = 0.55). No intraoperative complications occurred in either group. Six patients experienced nine complications in the LPN group. The complications included hemorrhage in 1, fever in 1, ileus in 1, urinary tract infection in 1, urine leak in 4, and transient postoperative neuropathy in 1. The LC group had no postoperative complications. In the LC cohort, no disease recurrence developed during the 11.3 months of follow-up. No positive margins were found in the LPN cohort, and with a mean follow-up of 12 months, none have developed recurrence. CONCLUSIONS:LPN for hilar tumors is a reasonable surgical option but carries an increased risk of urine leak. LC for hilar tumors has a shorter operative time and results in significantly fewer postoperative complications. Long-term follow-up data for both techniques remain unavailable.
Authors: Young Hwii Ko; Hoon Choi; Sung Gu Kang; Hong Seok Park; Jeong Gu Lee; Je Jong Kim; Seok Ho Kang; Jun Cheon Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 1.878
Authors: Simone L Vernez; Zhamshid Okhunov; Kamaljot Kaler; Ramy F Youssef; Rahul Dutta; Arkadiy Palvanov; Paras Shah; Kathryn Osann; David N Siegel; Igor Lobko; Louis Kavoussi; Ralph V Clayman; Jaime Landman Journal: Urology Date: 2017-06-23 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Se Hong Park; Seok Ho Kang; Young Hwii Ko; Sung Gu Kang; Hong Seok Park; Du Geon Moon; Jeong Gu Lee; Je Jong Kim; Jun Cheon Journal: Korean J Urol Date: 2010-08-18
Authors: Young Hwii Ko; Hong Seok Park; Du Geon Moon; Jeong Gu Lee; Je Jong Kim; Duck Ki Yoon; Seok Ho Kang; Jun Cheon Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2008-12-31 Impact factor: 4.679
Authors: Tobias Klatte; Nils Kroeger; Uwe Zimmermann; Martin Burchardt; Arie S Belldegrun; Allan J Pantuck Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-04-04 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Quancheng Yang; Fanzheng Meng; Kai Li; Tong Wang; Qingyuan Nie; Zi Che; Min Liu; Yan Sun; Lin Zhao Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 3.240