Affiliation:
1. Volgograd State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia;
Volgograd Regional Center of Urology and Nephrology
2. Volgograd Regional Center of Urology and Nephrology
Abstract
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.
Publisher
Publishing House ABV Press
Subject
Urology,Nephrology,Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging,Oncology,Surgery
Reference14 articles.
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.)].
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献