30. Results of laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery at Hanoi Medical University Hospital
Main Article Content
Abstract
For small tumors under 7cm, laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery is considered oncologically safe in cases of malignant tumors and has no difference with open surgery and even total nephrectomy. The majority of patients undergoing nephron-sparing surgery at the Department of Urology at Hanoi Medical University Hospital were selected via laparoscopy with or without the support of a robotic arm. We conducted a study to evaluate the results of this surgery. This is a retrospective description study of all patients undergoing laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery at Hanoi Medical University Hospital from January 2020 to September 2023. Data were processed using R statistical software version 4.3.1. 34 patients were included in this study. Females were 1.4 times more likely than males (p < 0.001). The average age was 50.91 ± 14.36 years old. There were 5/34 patients (32.56%) in the intermediate risk group according to the RENAL scale. Surgery time was 95.14 ± 7.66 minutes (Min = 80; Max = 120). Warm ischemia time was 28.71 ± 7.44 minutes (Min = 20; Max = 150). The amount of blood loss was 70.42 ± 35.32ml. Postoperative hospital stay was 3.07 ± 0.49 days (Min = 2; Max = 4). The probability of no recurrence at month 3 was 96.7% (95%CI: 0.905 - 1). In conclusion, laparoscopic surgery after kidney-preserving tumor resection is a minimally invasive surgery, and is safe and effective.
Article Details
Keywords
laparosopic, nephron-sparing surgery, tumors of kidney
References
2. Ljungberg B, Albiges L, Abu-Ghanem Y, et al. European Association of Urology guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2022 update. European urology. 2022;82(4):399-410.
3. Minervini A, Ficarra V, Rocco F, et al. Simple enucleation is equivalent to traditional partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: results of a nonrandomized, retrospective, comparative study. The Journal of urology. 2011;185(5):1604-1610.
4. Porpiglia F, Mari A, Amparore D, et al. Transperitoneal vs retroperitoneal minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: comparison of perioperative outcomes and functional follow-up in a large multi-institutional cohort (The RECORD 2 Project). Surgical Endoscopy. 2021;35:4295-4304.
5. Carbonara U, Crocerossa F, Campi R, et al. Retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and pooled analysis of comparative outcomes. European Urology Open Science. 2022;40:27-37.
6. Kutikov A, Uzzo RG. The RENAL nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. The Journal of urology. 2009;182(3):844-853.
7. Simhan J, Smaldone MC, Tsai KJ, et al. Objective measures of renal mass anatomic complexity predict rates of major complications following partial nephrectomy. European urology. 2011;60(4):724-730.
8. Fittschen A, Wendlik I, Oeztuerk S, et al. Prevalence of sporadic renal angiomyolipoma: a retrospective analysis of 61,389 in-and out-patients. Abdominal imaging. 2014;39:1009-1013.
9. Gong EM, Orvieto MA, Zorn KC, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy in clinical T1a renal tumors. Journal of endourology. 2008;22(5):953-958.
10. Guglielmetti GB, Dos Anjos GC, Sawczyn G, et al. A prospective, randomized trial comparing the outcomes of open vs laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. The Journal of Urology. 2022;208(2):259-267.
11. Marszalek M, Meixl H, Polajnar M, et al. Laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison of 200 patients. European urology. 2009;55(5):1171-1178.