Literature DB >> 21908096

Anatomic renal artery branch microdissection to facilitate zero-ischemia partial nephrectomy.

Casey K Ng1, Inderbir S Gill, Mukul B Patil, Andrew J Hung, Andre K Berger, Andre Luis de Castro Abreu, Masahiko Nakamoto, Manuel S Eisenberg, Osamu Ukimura, Duraiyah Thangathurai, Monish Aron, Mihir M Desai.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted and laparoscopic partial nephrectomies (PNs) for medial tumors are technically challenging even with the hilum clamped and, until now, were impossible to perform with the hilum unclamped.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate whether targeted vascular microdissection (VMD) of renal artery branches allows zero-ischemia PN to be performed even for challenging medial tumors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective cohort evaluation of 44 patients with renal masses who underwent robot-assisted or laparoscopic zero-ischemia PN either with anatomic VMD (group 1; n=22) or without anatomic VMD (group 2; n=22) performed by a single surgeon from April 2010 to January 2011. INTERVENTION: Zero-ischemia PN with VMD incorporates four maneuvers: (1) preoperative computed tomographic reconstruction of renal arterial branch anatomy, (2) anatomic dissection of targeted, tumor-specific tertiary or higher-order renal arterial branches, (3) neurosurgical aneurysm microsurgical bulldog clamp(s) for superselective tumor devascularization, and (4) transient, controlled reduction of blood pressure, if necessary. MEASUREMENTS: Baseline, perioperative, and postoperative data were collected prospectively. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Group 1 tumors were larger (4.3 vs 2.6 cm; p=0.011), were more often hilar (41% vs 9%; p=0.09), were medial (59% and 23%; p=0.017), were closer to the hilum (1.46 vs 3.26 cm; p=0.0002), and had a lower C index score (2.1 vs 3.9; p=0.004) and higher RENAL nephrometry scores (7.7 vs 6.2; p=0.013). Despite greater complexity, no group 1 tumor required hilar clamping, and perioperative outcomes were similar to those of group 2: operating room time (4.7 and 4.1h), median blood loss (200 and 100ml), surgical margins for cancer (all negative), major complications (0% and 9%), and minor complications (18% and 14%). The median serum creatinine level was similar 2 mo postoperatively (1.2 and 1.3mg/dl). The study was limited by the relatively small sample size.
CONCLUSIONS: Anatomic targeted dissection and superselective control of tumor-specific renal arterial branches facilitate zero-ischemia PN. Even challenging medial and hilar tumors can be excised without hilar clamping. Global surgical renal ischemia has been eliminated for most patients undergoing PN at our institution.
Copyright © 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21908096     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.08.040

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  38 in total

1.  Kidney cancer: zero-ischemia partial nephrectomy--further evaluations are needed.

Authors:  Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Alexander Mottrie
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 2.  Zero-ischemia minimally invasive partial nephrectomy.

Authors:  Giuseppe Simone; Mariaconsiglia Ferriero; Rocco Papalia; Manuela Costantini; Salvatore Guaglianone; Michele Gallucci
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Prevalence of baseline chronic kidney disease in 2,769 Chinese patients with renal cancer: nephron-sparing treatment is still underutilized.

Authors:  Kai-wei Yang; Geng-yan Xiong; Xue-song Li; Yuan Tang; Qi Tang; Cui-jian Zhang; Zhi-song He; Li-qun Zhou
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 4.  Zero ischaemia partial nephrectomy: a call for standardized nomenclature and functional outcomes.

Authors:  Ahmad Alenezi; Giacomo Novara; Alexander Mottrie; Salah Al-Buheissi; Omer Karim
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-10-18       Impact factor: 14.432

5.  Organ-sparing procedures in GU cancer: part 1-organ-sparing procedures in renal and adrenal tumors: a systematic review.

Authors:  Raouf Seyam; Mahmoud I Khalil; Mohamed H Kamel; Waleed M Altaweel; Rodney Davis; Nabil K Bissada
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2019-01-08       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 6.  Renal Function Following Nephron Sparing Procedures: Simply a Matter of Volume?

Authors:  Michael J Biles; G Joel DeCastro; Solomon L Woldu
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 3.092

7.  Open versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for clinical T1a renal masses: a matched-pair comparison of 280 patients with TRIFECTA outcomes (RECORd Project).

Authors:  Andrea Minervini; Giampaolo Siena; Alessandro Antonelli; Giampaolo Bianchi; Aldo Massimo Bocciardi; Sergio Cosciani Cunico; Vincenzo Ficarra; Cristian Fiori; Ferdinando Fusco; Andrea Mari; Giuseppe Martorana; Mauro Medica; Vincenzo Mirone; Giuseppe Morgia; Francesco Porpiglia; Francesco Rocco; Bruno Rovereto; Riccardo Schiavina; Claudio Simeone; Carlo Terrone; Alessandro Volpe; Marco Carini; Sergio Serni
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-09-07       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 8.  Current evidence on lasers in laparoscopy: partial nephrectomy.

Authors:  Iason Kyriazis; Mehmet Ozsoy; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Vasilios Panagopoulos; Marinos Vasilas; Evangelos Liatsikos
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 9.  A Literature Review of Renal Surgical Anatomy and Surgical Strategies for Partial Nephrectomy.

Authors:  Tobias Klatte; Vincenzo Ficarra; Christian Gratzke; Jihad Kaouk; Alexander Kutikov; Veronica Macchi; Alexandre Mottrie; Francesco Porpiglia; James Porter; Craig G Rogers; Paul Russo; R Houston Thompson; Robert G Uzzo; Christopher G Wood; Inderbir S Gill
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 10.  Partial nephrectomy--contemporary indications, techniques and outcomes.

Authors:  Scott Leslie; Alvin C Goh; Inderbir S Gill
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 14.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.