Transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for posterior cT1 renal tumors: A retrospective, two-centers, comparative study
https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.3.230
Accepted: March 22, 2020
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Objectives: To compare perioperative, oncological and functional outcomes of Laparoscopic Transperitoneal Partial Nephrectomy (LTPN) and Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy (LRPN) for posterior, cT1 renal masses (RMs).
Materials and methods: Databases of two urologic institutions applying different laparoscopic surgical approaches on posterior cT1 RMs between June 2016 and November 2018 were retrospectively evaluated. Data on patient demographics, perioperative data and tumor histology were collected and further analyzed statistically.
Results: Each group consisted of 15 patients. Baseline characteristics were comparable in each group. When compared to LTPN, LRPN was associated with significantly shorter operative time (OT) (115 min versus 199 min, p < 0.05). No significant differences were detected in the other outcomes.
Conclusions: LRPN is associated with a significantly shorter OT compared to LTPN for posterior cT1 RMs. Both surgical approaches are safe, feasible and credible, demonstrating optimal results.
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: e91978 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091978. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091978
Porpiglia F, Mari A, Bertolo R, et al. Partial nephrectomy in clinical T1b renal tumors: Multicenter Comparative Study of Open, Laparoscopic and Robot-assisted Approach (the RECORd Project). Urology. 2016 Mar;89:45-51. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.08.049. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.08.049
Ouzaid I, Xylinas E, Pignot G, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: is it worth still performing the retroperitoneal route? Adv Urol. 2012;2012:473457. doi: 10.1155/2012/473457. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/473457
Minervini A, Campi R, Sessa F, et al. Positive surgical margins and local recurrence after simple enucleation and standard partial nephrectomy for malignant renal tumors: systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of prevalence. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2017;69:523-38. DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.17.02864-8.
Marconi L, Challacombe B. Robotic partial nephrectomy for posterior renal tumours: retro or transperitoneal approach? Eur Urol Focus. 2018 Sep;4(5):632-635. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.08.003. Epub 2018 Aug 16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.08.003
Paulucci DJ, Beksac AT, Porter J, et al. A multi-institutional propensity score matched comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy for cT1 posterior tumors. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2019 Jan;29(1):29-34. doi: 10.1089/lap.2018.0313. Epub 2018 Aug 14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2018.0313
Fu J, Ye S, Ye HJ. Retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chin Med Sci J. 2015 Dec;30(4):239-44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-9294(16)30007-4
Vartolomei MD, Foerster B, Kimura S, Autorino R, Shariat SF, Seitz C. Oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive surgery for cT1 renal masses: a comprehensive review. Curr Opin Urol. 2018 Mar;28(2):132-138. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000477. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000477
Mearini L, Nunzi E, Vianello A, Di Biase M, Porena M. Margin and complication rates in clampless partial nephrectomy: a comparison of open, laparoscopic and robotic surgeries. J Robotic Surg. 2016 Jun;10(2):135-44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0584-x
Zhao PT, Richstone L, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Int J Surg. 2016 Apr 21; doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.04.028. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.04.028
Gin GE, Maschino AC, Spaliviero M, Vertosick EA, Bernstein ML, Coleman JA. Comparison of perioperative outcomes of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal minimally invasive partial nephrectomy after adjusting for tumor complexity. Urology2014; 84: 1355–1360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.07.045
Fan X, Xu K, Lin T, et al. Comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2013;111(4):611–621. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11598.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11598.x
Muñoj-Rodriguez J, Prera A, Dominguez A, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparative study of the transperitoneal pathway and the retroperitoneal pathway. Actas Urol Esp. 2018 May;42(4):273-279. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2017.09.008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuro.2017.09.008
Marszalek M, Chromecki T, Al-Ali BM, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison of the transperitoneal versus the retroperitoneal approach. Urology. 2011 Jan;77(1):109-13. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.02.057. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.02.057
Wright JL, Porter JR. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. J Urol. 2005;174: 841–845. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000169423.94253.46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000169423.94253.46
Rassweiler J J, Klein J, Tschada A, Gözen AS. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy using an ergonomic chair: demonstration of technique and matched‐pair analysis. BJU Int. 2017 Feb;119(2):349-357. doi: 10.1111/bju.13627. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13627
Ng CS, Gill IS, Ramani AP, et al. Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: patient selection and perioperative outcomes. J Urol. 2005;174:846–849. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000169259.49754.02
Kieran K, Montgomery JS, Daignault S, Roberts WW, Wolf JS Jr. Comparison of intraoperative parameters and perioperative complications of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: Support for a retroperitoneal approach in selected patients. J Endourol. 2007 Jul;21(7):754-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.0337
Klap J, Butow Z, Champy CM, et al. 1,000 retroperitoneoscopic procedures of the upper urinary tract: analysis of complications. Urol Int. 2019;102(4):406-412. doi: 10.1159/000497038. Epub 2019 Mar 6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000497038
Shefler A, Ghazi A, Zimmermann R, Janetschek G. Renal hilus clamping with tourniquet during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2011 May;107(10):1688-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10314.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10314.x
Shah PH, George AK, Moreira DM, et al. To clamp or not to clamp? Long-term functional outcomes for elective off-clamp laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2016 Feb;117(2):293-9. doi: 10.1111/bju.13309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13309
Bagheri F, Puztai C, Farkas L, et al. Impact of parenchymal loss on renal function after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy under warm ischemia. World J Urol. 2016 Dec;34(12):1629-1634. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1798-2
Ng AM, Shah PH, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: A Narrative Review and Comparison with Open and Robotic Partial Nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2017 Oct;31(10):976-984. doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0063. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0063
Corongiu E, Grande P, Di Santo A, et al. Safety and efficacy of retroperitoneal sutureless zero ischemia laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for low nephrometry score masses. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2019 Oct 2;91(3). doi: 10.4081/aiua.2019.3.157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2019.3.157
Tiscione D, Cai T, Luciani LG, et al. Sutureless laparoscopic partial nephrectomy using fibrin gel reduces ischemia time while preserving renal function. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2019 Mar 29;91(1):30-34. doi: 10.4081/aiua.2019.1.30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2019.1.30
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.
Downloads
Citations
