OBJECTIVES: Radical nephrectomy displays the standard procedure for patients with localized renal cell carcinoma. The transperitoneal approach is often favored compared to the retroperitoneal approach because of the early ligation of the renal vessels, thereby tumor cell shedding by manipulation of the tumor is thought to be avoided. The aim of our study was to investigate the influence of the surgical technique on intraoperative tumor cell shedding. Furthermore, we evaluated the clinical course of the patients being operated on with either method in terms of complications, postoperative recovery, and hospital stay. METHODS: A total of 55 consecutive patients with renal tumors suspicious for malignancies were evaluated for this study. Peripheral blood samples were obtained from 44 patients at admission, intraoperatively (before and after kidney removal), and before discharge. Ribonucleic acid was extracted, converted to complementary deoxyribonucleic acid, and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) with primers specific for G250/MNCA-9 was performed. Data regarding the clinical course of the patients were analyzed retrospectively by reviewing patient files. RESULTS: The clinical course for patients undergoing retroperitoneal nephrectomy was statistically different compared to the transperitoneal approach group regarding operating time and duration of drains, favoring the retroperitoneal approach group. Evaluation of MNCA-9 RT-PCR revealed no difference according to operative technique, tumor-nodes-metastasis, or clinical tumor stage. Despite this result, we found positive RT-PCR signals for MNCA-9 in patients with transitional cell cancer of the renal pelvis and benign renal lesions. CONCLUSIONS: There is no clinical relevant difference between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches for radical nephrectomy. Furthermore, the retroperitoneal approach does not bear the risk of intraoperative tumor cell shedding by the handling of the tumor.
OBJECTIVES: Radical nephrectomy displays the standard procedure for patients with localized renal cell carcinoma. The transperitoneal approach is often favored compared to the retroperitoneal approach because of the early ligation of the renal vessels, thereby tumor cell shedding by manipulation of the tumor is thought to be avoided. The aim of our study was to investigate the influence of the surgical technique on intraoperative tumor cell shedding. Furthermore, we evaluated the clinical course of the patients being operated on with either method in terms of complications, postoperative recovery, and hospital stay. METHODS: A total of 55 consecutive patients with renal tumors suspicious for malignancies were evaluated for this study. Peripheral blood samples were obtained from 44 patients at admission, intraoperatively (before and after kidney removal), and before discharge. Ribonucleic acid was extracted, converted to complementary deoxyribonucleic acid, and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) with primers specific for G250/MNCA-9 was performed. Data regarding the clinical course of the patients were analyzed retrospectively by reviewing patient files. RESULTS: The clinical course for patients undergoing retroperitoneal nephrectomy was statistically different compared to the transperitoneal approach group regarding operating time and duration of drains, favoring the retroperitoneal approach group. Evaluation of MNCA-9 RT-PCR revealed no difference according to operative technique, tumor-nodes-metastasis, or clinical tumor stage. Despite this result, we found positive RT-PCR signals for MNCA-9 in patients with transitional cell cancer of the renal pelvis and benign renal lesions. CONCLUSIONS: There is no clinical relevant difference between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches for radical nephrectomy. Furthermore, the retroperitoneal approach does not bear the risk of intraoperative tumor cell shedding by the handling of the tumor.
Authors: Martina Takacova; Maria Bartosova; Lucia Skvarkova; Miriam Zatovicova; Ivana Vidlickova; Lucia Csaderova; Monika Barathova; Jan Breza; Peter Bujdak; Jaromir Pastorek; Jan Breza; Silvia Pastorekova Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2012-10-26 Impact factor: 2.967