Influence of surgical approach on enhanced recovery after surgery in laparoscopic radical nephrectomy

Background. Аdvantages of the retroperitoneal approach, successfully applied in some clinics, but only a few studies on direct comparison of laparoscopic and retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy.

The study objective: to compare transperitoneal and retroperitoneal access during laparoscopic radical nephrectomy.

Materials and methods. The study included 332 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma T1a–T3b. Transperitoneal access – 134, retroperitoneal – 198.

Results. The mean time of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, as well as the time before clipping of the renal artery were significantly less in retroperitoneal access (161 ± 59 and 30 ± 24 min, respectively, compared with 178 ± 65 and 38 ± 39 min – with transperitoneal). The number of removed lymph nodes, and the number of patients detected with “positive” lymph nodes, and death from progression of disease was not significantly different between the groups transperitoneal and retroperitoneal access with an average follow-up period, 42.5 and 47.8 months respectively.

Conclusion. Despite the lower popularity retroperitoneal access, the method has advantages in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), particular frequency of general perioperative complications, duration of epidural anesthesia, time of normalization of bowel function and length of hospital stay compared with transperitoneal access. The method is preferred for the old age and patients with comorbidity, especially of the cardiovascular system and respiratory organs.

1. Алексеев Б.Я., Калпинский А.С., Воробьев Н.В. и др. Билатеральный рак почек. Онкология. Журнал им. П.А. Герцена 2016;5(1):55–62. DOI: 10.17116/onkolog20165155-62. [Alekseev B.Ya., Kalpinsky A.S., Vorobyev N.V. et al. Bilateral kidney cancer. Onkologiya. Zhurnal im. P.A. Gertsena = Oncology. P.A. Herzen Journal 2016;5(1):55–62. (In Russ.)].

2. Давыдов М.И., Матвеев В.Б., Волкова М.И. и др. Хирургическое лечение больных раком почки с массивной опухолевой инвазией нижней полой вены. Онкоурология 2017;13(1):27–36. DOI: 10.17650/1726-9776-2017-13-1-27-36. [Davydov M.I., Matveev V.B., Volkova M.I. et al. Surgical treatment of renal cell carcinoma with advanced tumor invasion of the inferior vena cava. Onkourologiya = Cancer Urology 2017;13(1):27–36. (In Russ.)].

3. Zhang Z.L., Li Y.H., Luo J.H. et al. Complications of radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective study comparing transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches using a standardized reporting methodology in two Chinese centers. Chin J Cancer 2013;32(8):461–8. DOI: 10.5732/cjc.012.10185.

4. Ren T., Liu Y., Zhao X. et al. Transperitoneal approach versus retroperitoneal approach: a meta-analysis of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. PLoS One 2014;9(3):e91978. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091978.

5. Кадыров З.А., Султанов И.К., Одилов А.Ю. и др. Некоторые послеоперационные показатели традиционной и ретроперитонеоскопической нефрэктомии. Вестник Авиценны. 2013;1(54):41–5. [Kadyrov Z.A., Sultanov I.K., Odilov A.Y. et al. Some postoperative indicators of traditional and retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy. Vestnik Avitsenny = Bulletin of Avicenna 2013;1(54):41–5. (In Russ.)].

6. Okegawa T., Noda H., Horie S. et al. Comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a single-center experience of 100 cases. Int J Urol 2008;15(11):957–60. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2008.02132.x.

7. Taue R., Izaki H., Koizumi T. et al. Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: a comparative study. Int J Urol 2008;16(3):263–7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2008.02219.x.

8. Ha U., Hwang T., Kim Y. et al. Comparison of oncological outcomes of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for the management of clear-cell renal cell carcinoma: a multi-institutional study. BJU Int 2010;107(9):1467–72. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.2010.09636.x.

9. Cicco A., Salomon L., Hoznek A. et al. Results of retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. J Endourol 2001;15(4):355–9. DOI: 10.1089/089277901300189349.

10. Rassweiler J., Henkel T., Stoch C. et al. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy and other procedures in the upper retroperitoneum using a balloon dissection technique. Eur Urol 1994;25(3):229–36. DOI: 10.1159/000475289.

11. Kerbl K., Figenshau R., Clayman R. et al. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy: laboratory and clinical experience. J Endourol 1993;7(1):23–6. DOI: 10.1089/end.1993.7.23.

12. Liapis D., de la Taille A., Ploussard G. et al. Analysis of complications from 600 retroperitoneoscopic procedures of the upper urinary tract during the last 10 years. World J Urol 2008;26(6):523–30. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-008-0319-3.

13. Pakish J., Soliman P., Frumovitz M. et al. A comparison of extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal laparoscopic or robotic para-aortic lymphadenectomy for staging of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2014;132(2):366–71. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.12.019.

14. Iavazzo C., Gkegkes I. Robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in gynaecological neoplasms: comparison of extraperitoneal and transperitoneal lymphadenectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015;293(1):11–28. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-015-3814-y.