Comparative analysis of short-term results of retroperitoneoscopic and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for large kidney tumors

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The study objectiveis to perform comparative analysis of short-term results of retroperitoneoscopic and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for large kidney tumors.

Materials and methods. The study is based on the results of examination and treatment of 108 patients with stage Т1—3аrenal cell carcinoma.

Results. For retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy, significant decrease in operative time, ligation and transection of the renal hilum, lower carbon dioxide expenditure, less intense pain sensations on day 1 after the surgery, lower analgesics expenditure, and hospitalization time.

Conclusion. The results show the advantages of retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy compared to laparoscopic nephrectomy.

About the authors

Z. A. Kadyrov

Medical Institute of the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia

ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1108-8138

Department of Endoscopic Urology, Faculty of Professional Development for Health Care Employees.

4 Kolomenskiy Proezd, Moscow 117198

Russian Federation

A. Yu. Odilov

Medical Institute of the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia

ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8432-6512

Department of Endoscopic Urology, Faculty of Professional Development for Health Care Employees.

4 Kolomenskiy Proezd, Moscow 117198

Russian Federation

D. M. Yagudaev

Medical Institute of the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia

Author for correspondence.
Email: y.d.m.21@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5949-6915

Department of Endoscopic Urology, Faculty of Professional Development for Health Care Employees.

4 Kolomenskiy Proezd, Moscow 117198

Russian Federation

References

  1. Матвеев Б.П. Клиническая онкоурология. М., 2003. С. 46-55. [Matveev B.P. Clinical oncological urology. Moscow, 2003. P. 46-55. (In Russ.)].
  2. Burgess N.A., Koo B.C., Calvert R.C. et al. Randomized trial of laparoscopic vs open nephrectomy. J Endourol 2007;21(6):610—3. doi: 10.1089/end.2006.0277. PMID: 17638555.
  3. Gratzke C., Seitz M., Bayrle F. et al. Quality of life and perioperative outcomes after retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy (RN), open RN and nephron-sparing surgery in patients with renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int 2009;104(4):470—5. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08439.x. PMID: 19239445.
  4. Srivastava A., Gupta M., Singh P. et al. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: a journey from T1 to very large T2 tumors. Urol Int 2009;82(3):330—4. doi: 10.1159/000209367. PMID: 19440023.
  5. Robson C.J. Radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 1963;83:37-42. PMID: 13974490.
  6. von Knobloch R., Seseke F., Riedmiller H. et al. Radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: is adrenalectomy necessary. Eur Urol 1999;36(4):303—8. doi: 10.1159/000020009. PMID: 10473989.
  7. Minervini A., Lilas L., Morelly G. et al. Regional lymph node dissection in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma: is it useful in patients with no suspected adenopathy before or during surgery. BJU 2001;88(3):169—72.
  8. Capitanio U., Becker F., Blute M.L. Lymph node dissection in renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 2011;60(6):1212—20. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.09.003. PMID: 21940096.
  9. Blom J.H., van Poppel H., Marechal J.M. et al. Radical nephrectomy with and without lymph-node dissection: final results of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) randomized phase 3 trial 30881. Eur Urol 2009;55(1):28—34. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.09.052. PMID: 18848382.
  10. Haber G.P., Brethauer S., Crouzet S. et al. Pure “natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery” for transvaginal nephrectomy in the porcine model.BJU Int 2009;104(9):1260—4. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08561.x. PMID: 19426194.
  11. Wang M., Ping H., Niu Y. et al. Pure con¬ventional laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with level II vena cava tumor thrombectomy. Int Braz J Urol 2014;40(2):266-73. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.02.18. PMID: 24856495.
  12. Perlin D.V., Zipunnikov V.P., Dymkov I.N., Shmanev A.O. Retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy with inferior vena cava thrombectomy. Urologiya = Urology 2016;(6):84—8. (In Russ.).
  13. Bagdasaryan A.A. Comparative analysis of traditional and videoendoscopic nephrectomies. Author’s abstract of thesis ... of candidate medical sciences. Moscow, 2014. 138 p. (In Russ.).
  14. Kvon D.A. Comparative evaluation of the results of radical nephrectomy performed using an “open” and laparoscopic access. Author’s abstract of thesis ... of candidate medical sciences. Moscow, 2009. 135 p. (In Russ.).
  15. Puchkov K.V. Surgical treatment of renal cancer today: laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and kidney resection. Urologi- ya = Urology 2008;(1):52—8. (In Russ.).
  16. Mosoyan M.S. Comparison of analysis details for open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted nephrectomy in the kidney cancer. Eksperimental’naya i klinicheskaya urologiya = Experimental and Clinical Urology 2014;(4):16—20. (In Russ.).
  17. Kadyrov Z.A. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal surgeries in urology. Moscow: BINOM, 2012. 183 p. (In Russ.).
  18. Kadyrov Z.A. Laparoscopic and retroperitoneoscopic surger¬ies in urology. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media, 2017. 488 p. (In Russ.).
  19. Kadyrov Z.A., Odilov A.Yu., Yagudaev D.M. Comparative analysis of intra- and postoperative complications of retroperitoneoscopic and laparoscopic nephrectomy for large tumors. Onkourologiya = Cancer Urology 2018;14(4):22—8. (In Russ.). doi: 10.17650/1726-9776-2018-14-4-22-28.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c)


СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77-36986 от  21.07.2009.