Literature DB >> 23575917

Sutureless hemostatic control during laparoscopic NSS for the treatment of small renal masses.

Andrea Minervini1, Giampaolo Siena, Agostino Tuccio, Alberto Lapini, Sergio Serni, Marco Carini.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a sutureless hemostatic control during laparoscopic nephron sparing surgery (LNSS) for the treatment of small renal masses.
METHODS: Between November 2007 and August 2010, 245 patients underwent nephron sparing surgery. Overall, 100 patients (41%) had LNSS. Hemostasis was controlled either by a knot-tying suture repair (standard-LNSS) or by a sutureless technique (s-LNSS). The s-LNSS was done using a bipolar cauterization of the resection bed, followed by Floseal apposition. Operative and warm ischemia time (WIT), intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, blood tests, and perioperative complications were recorded.
RESULTS: In 32 cases (32%) hemostasis was controlled by the sutureless technique. The s-LNSS was the treatment of choice for small tumors ≤1.5 cm, and it was also used for the treatment of tumors between 1.6 and 2.5 cm, aside from their spatial extension. Indeed, the mean (range; interquartile range) clinical dimension of the tumors in the s-LNSS group was 1.9 (1-3.5; 1.5-2.1) cm. On the contrary, the vast majority of tumors >2.5 cm were treated with standard-LNSS. Mean (range; interquartile range) WIT in the s-LNSS group was 16 (8-22; 12-16) minutes. The mean (range) intraoperative blood loss in the s-LNSS group was 107 cc (25-205). No postoperative early and late bleeding were reported in the s-LNSS group, and the mean (range) time to drainage removal and time to discharge were 3 (2-5) and 4 (3-7) days, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The sutureless technique with bipolar cauterization of the surgical bed and Floseal apposition is safe and effective for the hemostatic control in the treatment of small cortical masses. It can be always used for tumors ≤1.5 cm and can be a valid option also for tumors between 1.6 and 2.5 cm, aside from their spatial extension.

Entities:  

Keywords:  conservative treatment; laparoscopy; partial nephrectomy; renal cell carcinoma; surgical hemostasis

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23575917     DOI: 10.1177/1553350613484823

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Innov        ISSN: 1553-3506            Impact factor:   2.058


  4 in total

1.  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

2.  Initial experiences with the Hemopatch® as a hemostatic agent in zero-ischemia partial nephrectomy.

Authors:  F Imkamp; Y Tolkach; M Wolters; S Jutzi; M Kramer; T Herrmann
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-09-20       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Knotless retroperitoneoscopic nephron-sparing surgery for small renal masses: Comparison of bipolar sutureless technique and barbed suture technique.

Authors:  Jianfei Ye; Shudong Zhang; Xiaojun Tian; Guoliang Wang; Lei Zhao; Lulin Ma
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2018-03-08       Impact factor: 1.671

4.  Comparison of Sutureless Versus Suture Partial Nephrectomy for Clinical T1 Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis of Retrospective Studies.

Authors:  Wenjun Zhang; Bangwei Che; Shenghan Xu; Yi Mu; Jun He; Kaifa Tang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-09-02       Impact factor: 6.244

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.