INTRODUCTION: : Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) remains one of the more challenging procedures in urology. Minimizing warm ischemia time (WIT) and bleeding requires efficient intracorporeal suturing. In addition, achieving negative surgical margins requires complete excision of the tumour. We report a large Canadian series of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with intermediate follow-up. METHODS: : Between September 2000 and August 2008, 152 consecutive laparoscopic partial nephrectomies were performed at our centre. Demographic, pathological and clinical data were collected through a retrospective review of the charts. RESULTS: : The average tumour size was 2.68 cm (Range: 0.5-8.8. The vast majority of tumours were malignant (80%). All margins were negative, except for 2 patients who underwent an immediate re-resection. There were no local recurrences or distant metastasis during the follow-up period of 44.3 months. Most procedures required hilar clamping (93.4%) with a mean WIT of 34 minutes, with a clear trend for declining WIT with increasing experience. Five procedures were converted to laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, 10 converted to a hand-assisted procedure, and 1 was converted to an open partial nephrectomy. The average blood loss was 162 cc. Complications related to the procedure were classified according to the Clavien grading system. The average drop in the glomerular filtration rate was calculated by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study equation between preoperative and 2.5 months postoperative was 8.6 mL/min/1.73 m(2). CONCLUSIONS: : LPN is a challenging procedure that requires advanced laparoscopic skills. LPN is feasible with excellent oncological outcomes, and an acceptable complication profile. The short-term impact on overall renal function is minimal. The most common postoperative complication was pseudo-aneurysm requiring embolization, which reinforces the intra-operative need for meticulous and a quick suture-ligation of blood vessels during LPN.
INTRODUCTION: : Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) remains one of the more challenging procedures in urology. Minimizing warm ischemia time (WIT) and bleeding requires efficient intracorporeal suturing. In addition, achieving negative surgical margins requires complete excision of the tumour. We report a large Canadian series of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with intermediate follow-up. METHODS: : Between September 2000 and August 2008, 152 consecutive laparoscopic partial nephrectomies were performed at our centre. Demographic, pathological and clinical data were collected through a retrospective review of the charts. RESULTS: : The average tumour size was 2.68 cm (Range: 0.5-8.8. The vast majority of tumours were malignant (80%). All margins were negative, except for 2 patients who underwent an immediate re-resection. There were no local recurrences or distant metastasis during the follow-up period of 44.3 months. Most procedures required hilar clamping (93.4%) with a mean WIT of 34 minutes, with a clear trend for declining WIT with increasing experience. Five procedures were converted to laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, 10 converted to a hand-assisted procedure, and 1 was converted to an open partial nephrectomy. The average blood loss was 162 cc. Complications related to the procedure were classified according to the Clavien grading system. The average drop in the glomerular filtration rate was calculated by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study equation between preoperative and 2.5 months postoperative was 8.6 mL/min/1.73 m(2). CONCLUSIONS: : LPN is a challenging procedure that requires advanced laparoscopic skills. LPN is feasible with excellent oncological outcomes, and an acceptable complication profile. The short-term impact on overall renal function is minimal. The most common postoperative complication was pseudo-aneurysm requiring embolization, which reinforces the intra-operative need for meticulous and a quick suture-ligation of blood vessels during LPN.
Authors: William C Huang; Andrew S Levey; Angel M Serio; Mark Snyder; Andrew J Vickers; Ganesh V Raj; Peter T Scardino; Paul Russo Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Josef Coresh; Tom Greene; Lesley A Stevens; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Stephen Hendriksen; John W Kusek; Frederick Van Lente Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-08-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Mark J Sarnak; Andrew S Levey; Anton C Schoolwerth; Josef Coresh; Bruce Culleton; L Lee Hamm; Peter A McCullough; Bertram L Kasiske; Ellie Kelepouris; Michael J Klag; Patrick Parfrey; Marc Pfeffer; Leopoldo Raij; David J Spinosa; Peter W Wilson Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-10-28 Impact factor: 29.690