Desai Mihir M, Strzempkowski Brenda, Matin Surena F, Steinberg Andrew P, Ng Christopher, Meraney Anoop M, Kaouk Jihad H, Gill Inderbir S
Section of Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery, Glickman Urological Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA.
J Urol. 2005 Jan;173(1):38-41. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000145886.26719.73.
We report on a prospective randomized comparison of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal tumor.
Between June 1999 and June 2001, 102 consecutive eligible patients with a computerized tomography identified renal tumor were prospectively randomized to undergo either a transperitoneal (group 1, 50 patients) or retroperitoneal (group 2, 52 patients) laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with intact specimen extraction. Exclusion criteria for the study included body mass index greater than 35 or a history of prior major abdominal surgery in the quadrant of interest. Both groups were matched regarding age (63 versus 65 years, p = 0.69), BMI (29 versus 28, p = 0.89), American Society of Anesthesiologists class (2.7 versus 2.8, p = 0.37), laterality (right side 46% versus 48%, p = 0.85) and mean tumor size (5.3 versus 5.0 cm, p = 0.73).
All 102 procedures were technically successful without the need for open conversion. Compared to the transperitoneal approach, the retroperitoneal approach was associated with a shorter time to renal artery control (91 versus 34 minutes, p <0.0001), shorter time to renal vein control (98 versus 45 minutes, p <0.0001) and shorter total operative time (207 versus 150 minutes, p = 0.001). However, the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches were similar in terms of estimated blood loss (180 versus 242 cc, p = 0.13), hospital stay (43 versus 45 hours, p = 0.55), intraoperative complications (10% versus 7.7%, p = 0.30), postoperative complications (20% versus 13.5%, p = 0.14) and postoperative analgesia requirements (27 versus 26 mg MSO4 equivalent p = 0.13). Pathology revealed renal cell carcinoma in 84% and 75% of cases, respectively, with no positive surgical margin in any case.
Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy can be performed efficiently and effectively with the transperitoneal or the retroperitoneal approach. While renal hilar control and total operative time may be quicker with retroperitoneoscopy, the approaches are similar in terms of other patient outcomes evaluated.
我们报告了经腹与腹膜后腹腔镜根治性肾切除术治疗肾肿瘤的前瞻性随机对照研究。
1999年6月至2001年6月期间,102例经计算机断层扫描确诊为肾肿瘤的符合条件的连续患者被前瞻性随机分为两组,一组接受经腹腹腔镜根治性肾切除术(第1组,50例患者),另一组接受腹膜后腹腔镜根治性肾切除术(第2组,52例患者),并完整取出标本。该研究的排除标准包括体重指数大于35或感兴趣象限有既往重大腹部手术史。两组在年龄(63岁对65岁,p = 0.69)、体重指数(29对28,p = 0.89)、美国麻醉医师协会分级(2.7对2.8,p = 0.37)、患侧(右侧46%对48%,p = 0.85)和平均肿瘤大小(5.3 cm对5.0 cm,p = 0.73)方面相匹配。
所有102例手术在技术上均获成功,无需转为开放手术。与经腹入路相比,腹膜后入路控制肾动脉的时间更短(91分钟对34分钟,p <0.0001),控制肾静脉的时间更短(98分钟对45分钟,p <0.0001),总手术时间更短(207分钟对150分钟,p = 0.001)。然而,经腹和腹膜后入路在估计失血量(180 cc对242 cc,p = 0.13)、住院时间(43小时对45小时,p = 0.55)、术中并发症(10%对7.7%,p = 0.30)、术后并发症(20%对13.5%,p = 0.14)以及术后镇痛需求(27 mg对26 mg硫酸吗啡当量,p = 0.13)方面相似。病理检查分别在84%和75%的病例中发现肾细胞癌,所有病例手术切缘均无阳性。
经腹或腹膜后入路均可有效且高效地进行腹腔镜根治性肾切除术。虽然腹膜后腹腔镜检查在控制肾门和缩短总手术时间方面可能更快,但在评估的其他患者结局方面,两种入路相似。