Yuan Ruan1, Xiao-Hai Wang1, Kui Wang1, Yu-Yang Zhao1, Shu-Jie Xia2, Dong-Liang Xu3. 1. Department of Urology, Shanghai General Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No. 85, Wujin Road, Shanghai, 200080, China. 2. Department of Urology, Shanghai General Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No. 85, Wujin Road, Shanghai, 200080, China. xsjurologist@163.com. 3. Department of Urology, Shanghai General Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No. 85, Wujin Road, Shanghai, 200080, China. urologistdlx@126.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of three-dimensional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with selective segmental artery clamping (3D-LPNSSAC) comparing with the conventional two-dimensional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (2D-LPN). METHODS:Between November 2012 and March 2014, 90 patients with cT1 renal tumor at Shanghai General Hospital were enrolled in our study, which were randomly divided into two groups: the 3D-LPNSSAC group (n = 45) and 2D-LPN group (n = 45). The perioperative variables, including operative time, dissecting time, suturing time, blood loss, warm ischemia time (WIT), preoperative and postoperative renal functions, were recorded and analyzed. In addition, the oncological outcomes and complications were also evaluated. RESULTS: All the LPNs were performed successfully without conversion to radical nephrectomy or open surgery, only three cases were converted to total renal artery clamping during 3D-LPNSSAC. There were no significant differences in operative time and dissecting time between the groups, while the suturing time was shorter during 3D-LPNSSAC (P < 0.01). The technique was associated with higher blood loss (P < 0.01). The technique of 3D-LPNSSAC significantly reduced WIT (P = 0.04), and better postoperative ipsilateral renal function could be obtained during 3D-LPNSSAC (P < 0.01). During a mean follow-up time of 16.8 months (range 5.5-22.5 months), the complication rate was 8.8 % (8/90) and no tumor reoccurrence was detected. CONCLUSIONS:3D-LPNSSAC is a feasible and safe technique for treating selective renal tumors, presenting with the beneficial clinical outcomes of reduced suturing time, shorter WIT and better postoperative ipsilateral renal function.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of three-dimensional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with selective segmental artery clamping (3D-LPNSSAC) comparing with the conventional two-dimensional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (2D-LPN). METHODS: Between November 2012 and March 2014, 90 patients with cT1 renal tumor at Shanghai General Hospital were enrolled in our study, which were randomly divided into two groups: the 3D-LPNSSAC group (n = 45) and 2D-LPN group (n = 45). The perioperative variables, including operative time, dissecting time, suturing time, blood loss, warm ischemia time (WIT), preoperative and postoperative renal functions, were recorded and analyzed. In addition, the oncological outcomes and complications were also evaluated. RESULTS: All the LPNs were performed successfully without conversion to radical nephrectomy or open surgery, only three cases were converted to total renal artery clamping during 3D-LPNSSAC. There were no significant differences in operative time and dissecting time between the groups, while the suturing time was shorter during 3D-LPNSSAC (P < 0.01). The technique was associated with higher blood loss (P < 0.01). The technique of 3D-LPNSSAC significantly reduced WIT (P = 0.04), and better postoperative ipsilateral renal function could be obtained during 3D-LPNSSAC (P < 0.01). During a mean follow-up time of 16.8 months (range 5.5-22.5 months), the complication rate was 8.8 % (8/90) and no tumor reoccurrence was detected. CONCLUSIONS: 3D-LPNSSAC is a feasible and safe technique for treating selective renal tumors, presenting with the beneficial clinical outcomes of reduced suturing time, shorter WIT and better postoperative ipsilateral renal function.
Authors: Achim Lusch; Philip L Bucur; Ashleigh D Menhadji; Zhamshid Okhunov; Michael Andre Liss; Alberto Perez-Lanzac; Elspeth M McDougall; Jaime Landman Journal: J Endourol Date: 2014-01-10 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Maxine Sun; Firas Abdollah; Marco Bianchi; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Claudio Jeldres; Rodolphe Thuret; Zhe Tian; Shahrokh F Shariat; Francesco Montorsi; Paul Perrotte; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-02-10 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Monish Aron; Phillipe Koenig; Jihad H Kaouk; Mike M Nguyen; Mihir M Desai; Inderbir S Gill Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-03-11 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Fabio Levi; Jacques Ferlay; Carlotta Galeone; Franca Lucchini; Eva Negri; Peter Boyle; Carlo La Vecchia Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-01-30 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Hiten D Patel; Jeffrey K Mullins; Phillip M Pierorazio; Gautam Jayram; Jason E Cohen; Brian R Matlaga; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Alberto Arezzo; Nereo Vettoretto; Nader K Francis; Marco Augusto Bonino; Nathan J Curtis; Daniele Amparore; Simone Arolfo; Manuel Barberio; Luigi Boni; Ronit Brodie; Nicole Bouvy; Elisa Cassinotti; Thomas Carus; Enrico Checcucci; Petra Custers; Michele Diana; Marilou Jansen; Joris Jaspers; Gadi Marom; Kota Momose; Beat P Müller-Stich; Kyokazu Nakajima; Felix Nickel; Silvana Perretta; Francesco Porpiglia; Francisco Sánchez-Margallo; Juan A Sánchez-Margallo; Marlies Schijven; Gianfranco Silecchia; Roberto Passera; Yoav Mintz Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Francesco Greco; Riccardo Autorino; Vincenzo Altieri; Steven Campbell; Vincenzo Ficarra; Inderbir Gill; Alexander Kutikov; Alex Mottrie; Vincenzo Mirone; Hendrik van Poppel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-10-13 Impact factor: 24.267