PURPOSE: The safety and efficacy of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have not been clearly demonstrated. We aimed to present preliminary data from a prospective randomized controlled trial of LESS versus conventional laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for localized RCC. METHODS:Patients with cT1-2 RCC were randomized to LESS (n = 17) or conventional laparoscopy (n = 18) group. The short-term outcome measures assessed were perioperative morbidity, postoperative pain, and quality of recovery as determined using QoR-40. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the LESS and conventional laparoscopy groups with respect to operative time (143.5 vs. 126.1 min, p = 0.218), blood loss (143.6 vs. 118.2 ml, p = 0.121), hospital stay (3.8 vs. 3.1 day s, p = 0.170), analgesic requirements (63.2 vs. 60.0 mg, p = 0.956), and complication rates (26.7 vs. 22.2 %, p = 0.767). However, postoperative quality of recovery was better in the LESS group (176.4 vs. 152.6, p = 0.005). Furthermore, quality of recovery, as measured using the QoR-40 dimensions of emotional state (39.9 vs. 34.0, p = 0.003), physical comfort (51.9 vs. 46.7, p = 0.034), psychological support (32.2 vs. 25.8, p = 0.003), and physical independence (20.7 vs. 17.5, p = 0.047), but not pain (31.8 vs. 29.6, p = 0.259), was significantly better in the LESS group. CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary results from this prospective trial suggest that LESS could be a safe and effective treatment option for localized RCC with equivalent surgical outcomes and improved postoperative quality of recovery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The safety and efficacy of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have not been clearly demonstrated. We aimed to present preliminary data from a prospective randomized controlled trial of LESS versus conventional laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for localized RCC. METHODS:Patients with cT1-2 RCC were randomized to LESS (n = 17) or conventional laparoscopy (n = 18) group. The short-term outcome measures assessed were perioperative morbidity, postoperative pain, and quality of recovery as determined using QoR-40. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the LESS and conventional laparoscopy groups with respect to operative time (143.5 vs. 126.1 min, p = 0.218), blood loss (143.6 vs. 118.2 ml, p = 0.121), hospital stay (3.8 vs. 3.1 day s, p = 0.170), analgesic requirements (63.2 vs. 60.0 mg, p = 0.956), and complication rates (26.7 vs. 22.2 %, p = 0.767). However, postoperative quality of recovery was better in the LESS group (176.4 vs. 152.6, p = 0.005). Furthermore, quality of recovery, as measured using the QoR-40 dimensions of emotional state (39.9 vs. 34.0, p = 0.003), physical comfort (51.9 vs. 46.7, p = 0.034), psychological support (32.2 vs. 25.8, p = 0.003), and physical independence (20.7 vs. 17.5, p = 0.047), but not pain (31.8 vs. 29.6, p = 0.259), was significantly better in the LESS group. CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary results from this prospective trial suggest that LESS could be a safe and effective treatment option for localized RCC with equivalent surgical outcomes and improved postoperative quality of recovery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery.
Authors: R V Clayman; L R Kavoussi; N J Soper; S M Dierks; S Meretyk; M D Darcy; F D Roemer; E D Pingleton; P G Thomson; S R Long Journal: J Urol Date: 1991-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Mireia Musquera; Carlos Ignacio Calvo; José Vetorazzo; Tarek Ajami; María José Ribal; Lluis Peri; Antonio Alcaraz Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2021-01-15