BACKGROUND: Partial nephrectomy is the surgical standard of care for favorably located, small renal tumors. As the incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and detection of small kidney masses have increased over the past 20 years, minimally invasive management of these lesions has become more common. We report our single-institution experience with hand-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (HALPN) compared with open partial nephrectomy (OPN). METHODS: Relevant outcome and demographic information was collected prospectively for HALPNs (N = 60) and retrospectively for OPNs (N = 40). A p-value of < 0.05 denotes statistical significance. RESULTS: Average tumor size (2.6 cm HALPN versus 2.6 cm OPN, p = 0.97) was similar. Mean operative times were shorter for HALPN compared with OPN (161 versus 191 min, p = 0.027). HALPN was also associated with less blood loss (mean 120 cc versus 353 cc, p = 0.0003). Warm ischemia time was shorter for HALPN (mean 27.0 min versus 33.0 min, p = 0.035), as was hospital stay (mean 4.9 days versus 6.9 days, p = 0.007). Although four HALPN renal tumors required intraoperative margin re-excision (based on immediate gross evaluation by a pathologist), the final positive margin rate was 0%. A 5% final positive margin rate was observed in the OPN group. There were two conversions from HALPN to HAL radical nephrectomy and no conversions to an open technique. The HALPN minor complication rate was 18.3% versus 32.5% for OPN (p = 0.10). Complications included delayed bleeding (1, 2.5% OPN), urine leak (2, 5% OPN; 2, 3.3% HALPN), hypoxia, and nausea or fever lasting >3 days. Tumor pathology was as follows: 80.7% and 80% RCC, 12.3% and 8% oncocytoma, and 7% and 12% angiomyolipoma, for HALPN and OPN, respectively in each case. CONCLUSIONS: HALPN is associated with diminished blood loss, operating time, warm ischemia time, positive margin rates, and length of stay compared with OPN. In our institution, HALPN is the standard approach for patients with small, surgically accessible renal tumors.
BACKGROUND: Partial nephrectomy is the surgical standard of care for favorably located, small renal tumors. As the incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and detection of small kidney masses have increased over the past 20 years, minimally invasive management of these lesions has become more common. We report our single-institution experience with hand-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (HALPN) compared with open partial nephrectomy (OPN). METHODS: Relevant outcome and demographic information was collected prospectively for HALPNs (N = 60) and retrospectively for OPNs (N = 40). A p-value of < 0.05 denotes statistical significance. RESULTS: Average tumor size (2.6 cm HALPN versus 2.6 cm OPN, p = 0.97) was similar. Mean operative times were shorter for HALPN compared with OPN (161 versus 191 min, p = 0.027). HALPN was also associated with less blood loss (mean 120 cc versus 353 cc, p = 0.0003). Warm ischemia time was shorter for HALPN (mean 27.0 min versus 33.0 min, p = 0.035), as was hospital stay (mean 4.9 days versus 6.9 days, p = 0.007). Although four HALPN renal tumors required intraoperative margin re-excision (based on immediate gross evaluation by a pathologist), the final positive margin rate was 0%. A 5% final positive margin rate was observed in the OPN group. There were two conversions from HALPN to HAL radical nephrectomy and no conversions to an open technique. The HALPN minor complication rate was 18.3% versus 32.5% for OPN (p = 0.10). Complications included delayed bleeding (1, 2.5% OPN), urine leak (2, 5% OPN; 2, 3.3% HALPN), hypoxia, and nausea or fever lasting >3 days. Tumor pathology was as follows: 80.7% and 80% RCC, 12.3% and 8% oncocytoma, and 7% and 12% angiomyolipoma, for HALPN and OPN, respectively in each case. CONCLUSIONS:HALPN is associated with diminished blood loss, operating time, warm ischemia time, positive margin rates, and length of stay compared with OPN. In our institution, HALPN is the standard approach for patients with small, surgically accessible renal tumors.
Authors: Richard E Link; Sam B Bhayani; Mohammed E Allaf; Ioannis Varkarakis; Takeshi Inagaki; Craig Rogers; Li-Ming Su; Thomas W Jarrett; Louis R Kavoussi Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: A Breda; S V Stepanian; J Liao; J S Lam; G Guazzoni; M Stifelman; K Perry; A Celia; G Breda; P Fornara; S Jackman; A Rosales; J Palou; M Grasso; V Pansadoro; V Disanto; F Porpiglia; C Milani; C Abbou; R Gaston; G Janetschek; N A Soomro; J de la Rosette; M P Laguna; P G Schulam Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-05-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Luke M Fazio; Donal Downey; Christopher Y Nguan; Vaishali Karnik; Mohammed Al-Omar; Kevin Kwan; Jonathan I Izawa; Joseph L Chin; Patrick P W Luke Journal: Urology Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: K W Kercher; B T Heniford; B D Matthews; T I Smith; A E Lincourt; D H Hayes; L B Eskind; P B Irby; C M Teigland Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2003-10-23 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Inderbir S Gill; Surena F Matin; Mihir M Desai; Jihad H Kaouk; Andrew Steinberg; Ed Mascha; Julie Thornton; Mahmoud H Sherief; Brenda Strzempkowski; Andrew C Novick Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 7.450