OBJECTIVES: To report our single institutional experience of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) for enhancing renal masses and evaluate outcomes and histopathologic findings with respect to the location of the renal mass. METHODS: A retrospective review of LPN for 123 renal masses completed by 7 urologists was performed. Of these lesions, 49 (40%) were exophytic, 19 (15.5%) endophytic, 47 (38%) mesophytic, and 8 (6.5%) were hilar. We defined exophytic as more than 60%, mesophytic as 40% to 60%, and endophytic as less than 40% of the renal mass protruding off the surface of the kidney on radiologic imaging studies. Hilar lesions were those located within 5 mm of the renal hilar structures, regardless of the surface characteristics. RESULTS: The mean tumor size was 2.6 cm (range 1 to 9). Hilar vessel clamping was performed during 55 procedures (44.7%); the mean warm ischemia time was 27 minutes (range 12 to 52). On final histopathologic examination, 3 patients (2.5%) had positive tumor resection margins. Overall, 26 (20.6%) complications occurred. The complication rate was significantly less for patients who underwent LPN for an exophytic (10%) or a mesophytic (12.8%) mass than for those with an endophytic (47%) or a hilar (50%) mass. Histopathologic examination of the renal masses revealed malignant pathologic features in 86 (69%) and benign findings in 37 (31%). In our series, only 55% of exophytic tumors were malignant and, if malignant, were invariably low grade (96%). CONCLUSIONS: The complications of LPN and the malignancy rate of the renal lesions were related to the tumor location within the kidney.
OBJECTIVES: To report our single institutional experience of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) for enhancing renal masses and evaluate outcomes and histopathologic findings with respect to the location of the renal mass. METHODS: A retrospective review of LPN for 123 renal masses completed by 7 urologists was performed. Of these lesions, 49 (40%) were exophytic, 19 (15.5%) endophytic, 47 (38%) mesophytic, and 8 (6.5%) were hilar. We defined exophytic as more than 60%, mesophytic as 40% to 60%, and endophytic as less than 40% of the renal mass protruding off the surface of the kidney on radiologic imaging studies. Hilar lesions were those located within 5 mm of the renal hilar structures, regardless of the surface characteristics. RESULTS: The mean tumor size was 2.6 cm (range 1 to 9). Hilar vessel clamping was performed during 55 procedures (44.7%); the mean warm ischemia time was 27 minutes (range 12 to 52). On final histopathologic examination, 3 patients (2.5%) had positive tumor resection margins. Overall, 26 (20.6%) complications occurred. The complication rate was significantly less for patients who underwent LPN for an exophytic (10%) or a mesophytic (12.8%) mass than for those with an endophytic (47%) or a hilar (50%) mass. Histopathologic examination of the renal masses revealed malignant pathologic features in 86 (69%) and benign findings in 37 (31%). In our series, only 55% of exophytic tumors were malignant and, if malignant, were invariably low grade (96%). CONCLUSIONS: The complications of LPN and the malignancy rate of the renal lesions were related to the tumor location within the kidney.
Authors: Matthias Waldert; Sandra Waalkes; Tobias Klatte; Markus A Kuczyk; Peter Weibl; Gerd Schüller; Axel S Merseburger; Mesut Remzi Journal: World J Urol Date: 2010-07-07 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Reza Mehrazin; Marc C Smaldone; Brian Egleston; Jeffrey J Tomaszewski; Charles W Concodora; Timothy K Ito; Philip H Abbosh; David Y T Chen; Alexander Kutikov; Robert G Uzzo Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2015-03-14 Impact factor: 3.498
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: Atul B Shinagare; Raghu Vikram; Carl Jaffe; Oguz Akin; Justin Kirby; Erich Huang; John Freymann; Nisha I Sainani; Cheryl A Sadow; Tharakeswara K Bathala; Daniel L Rubin; Aytekin Oto; Matthew T Heller; Venkateswar R Surabhi; Venkat Katabathina; Stuart G Silverman Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2015-08
Authors: Alberto Pansadoro; Giovanni Cochetti; Francesco D'amico; Francesco Barillaro; Michele Del Zingaro; Ettore Mearini Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-06-07 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Mark W Ball; Michael A Gorin; Sam B Bhayani; Craig G Rogers; Michael D Stifelman; Jihad H Kaouk; Homayoun Zargar; Susan Marshall; Jeffrey A Larson; Haider M Rahbar; Bruce J Trock; Phillip M Pierorazio; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2014-12-11 Impact factor: 3.498
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