Minimally Invasive Approach in Surgical Management of Renal Neoplasms National Cancer Institute Experience
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2020.4820Keywords:
Minimally invasive nephrectomy, Warm ischemia time, Laparoscopic nephrectomy, Robot-assisted nephrectomyAbstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive nephrectomy is considered a technically challenging procedure requiring a long learning curve to reach acceptable warm ischemia time and perioperative complications. These minimally invasive techniques result in a shorter hospital stay and less post-operative pain.
AIM: This study aims to demonstrate the National Cancer Institute experience regarding the benefits of laparoscopic and robot-assisted nephrectomy over open technique.
METHODS: This is a retrospective descriptive cohort study including 62 patients with renal masses treated with nephrectomy whether partial, total or radical, 26 cases were treated by minimally invasive techniques (8 robotic and 18 laparoscopic), while 36 cases were treated by open technique. Inclusion criteria were patients between 20 and 70 years with renal neoplasm without renal vein thrombosis, with tumor stage T1 or T2 N0 M0. Exclusion criteria were patients with medical comorbidities that preclude surgical management or minimally invasive techniques and patients refusing surgery in general.
RESULTS: Minimally invasive nephrectomy resulted in shorter hospital stay (mean hospital stay was 2.2 days for the minimally invasive group and 3.6 days for the open group) and less post-operative pain than open technique (p < 0.001 and = 0.002, respectively), while open technique resulted in shorter operation time (p = 0.039, mean operation time 147.8 min compared to 184.8 in the minimally invasive group).
CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive nephrectomy (laparoscopic and robotic) resulted in less post-operative pain and shorter hospital stay compared to open technique despite consuming longer operation time which may be decreased by improving the learning curve of operating surgeons.
Downloads
Metrics
Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block
References
Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Smigal C, et al. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006;56(2):106-30. https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.56.2.106 PMid:16514137
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(1):7-34. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21551 PMid:30620402
Campbell SC, Novick AC, Belldegrun A, Blute ML, Chow GK, Derweesh IH, et al. Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass. J Urol. 2009;182(4):1271- 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.07.004 PMid:19683266
Edge SB, Compton CC. The American joint committee on cancer: The 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(6):1471- 4. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-0985-4 PMid:20180029
Fuhrman SA, Lasky LC, Limas C. Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1982;6(7):655-63. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-198210000-00007 PMid:7180965
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: Five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):187- 96. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181b13ca2 PMid:19638912
Klaassen Z, Kohut RM Jr., Patel D, Terris MK, Madi R. A single surgeon’s experience with open, laparoscopic, and robotic partial nephrectomy. Int Sch Res Notices. 2014;2014:430914. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/430914
Lucas SM, Mellon MJ, Erntsberger L, Sundaram CP. A comparison of robotic, laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy. JSLS. 2012;16(4):581-7. https://doi.org/10.4293/108680812x13462882737177 PMid:23484568
Patard JJ, Pantuck AJ, Crepel M, Lam JS, Bellec L, Albouy B, et al. Morbidity and clinical outcome of nephron-sparing surgery in relation to tumour size and indication. Eur Urol J. 2007;52(1):148- 54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.01.039 PMid:17240036
Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Lane BR, Blute ML, Babineau D, Colombo JR Jr., et al. Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors. J Urol. 2007;178(1):41-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.038 PMid:17574056
Liu G, Ma Y, Wang S, Han X, Dianjun G. Laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Oncol. 2017;10(4):501- 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranon.2017.03.004 PMid:28550770
Lee H, Lee CU, Yoo JH, Sung HH, Jeong BC, Jeon SS, et al. Comparisons of oncological outcomes and perioperative complications between laparoscopic and open radical nephrectomies in patients with clinical T2 renal cell carcinoma (≥7cm). PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0191786. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191786 PMid:29364958
Steinberg AP, Finelli A, Desai MM, Abreu SC, Ramani AP, Spaliviero M, et al. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for large (greater than 7 cm, T2) renal tumors. J Urol. 2004;172:2172- 6. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000140961.53335.04 PMid:15538225
Hemal AK, Kumar A, Kumar R, Wadhwa P, Seth A, Gupta NP. Laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy for large renal tumors: A long-term prospective comparison. J Urol. 2007;177(3):862-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.053 PMid:17296361
Ali Khan MM, Patel RA, Jain N, Balakrishnan A, Venkataraman M. Prospective analysis of laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy for renal tumours more than 7 cm. J Minim Access Surg. 2018;15(1):14- 8. https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.jmas_158_17 PMid:29582796
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Amr Mounir Selim, Ashraf Saad Zaghloul, Hatem Ahmed AbouLkassem, Amr Farouk Fergany, Abdelmaksoud Mohamed Abdelmaksoud, Waleed Mohamed Fadlalla, Mahmoud Amr Abd Elhakim, Rasha Mahmoud Allam (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
