DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Technical Improvement Using a Three-Dimensional Video System for Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy

  • Komatsuda, Akari (Department of Urology, Keio University School of Medicine) ;
  • Matsumoto, Kazuhiro (Department of Urology, Keio University School of Medicine) ;
  • Miyajima, Akira (Department of Urology, Keio University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kaneko, Gou (Department of Urology, Keio University School of Medicine) ;
  • Mizuno, Ryuichi (Department of Urology, Keio University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kikuchi, Eiji (Department of Urology, Keio University School of Medicine) ;
  • Oya, Mototsugu (Department of Urology, Keio University School of Medicine)
  • Published : 2016.05.01

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy is one of the major surgical techniques for small renal masses. However, it is difficult to manage cutting and suturing procedures within acceptable time periods. To overcome this difficulty, we applied a three-dimensional (3D) video system with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, and evaluated its utility. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 31 patients who underwent laparoscopic partial nephrectomy between November 2009 and June 2014. A conventional two-dimensional (2D) video system was used in 20 patients, and a 3D video system in 11. Patient characteristics and video system type (2D or 3D) were recorded, and correlations with perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Results: Mean age of the patients was $55.8{\pm}12.4$, mean body mass index was $25.7{\pm}3.9kg/m^2$, mean tumor size was $2.0{\pm}0.8cm$, mean R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score was $6.9{\pm}1.9$, and clinical stage was T1a in all patients. There were no significant differences in operative time (p=0.348), pneumoperitoneum time (p=0.322), cutting time (p=0.493), estimated blood loss (p=0.335), and Clavien grade of >II complication rate (p=0.719) between the two groups. However, warm ischemic time was significantly shorter in the 3D group than the 2D group (16.1 min vs. 21.2min, p=0.021), which resulted from short suturing time (9.1 min vs. 15.2 min, p=0.008). No open conversion occurred in either group. Conclusions: A 3D video system allows the shortening of warm ischemic time in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and thus may be useful in improving the procedure.

Keywords

Three-dimensional;laparoscopic partial nephrectomy;warm ischemic time;suturing time;video system

References

  1. Aykan S, Singhal P, Nguyen DP, et al (2014). Perioperative, pathologic, and early continence outcomes comparing three-dimensional and two-dimensional display systems for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy--a retrospective, single-surgeon study. J Endourol, 28, 539-43. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0630
  2. Benway BM, Bhayani SB, Rogers CG, et al (2009). Robot assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors: a multi-institutional analysis of perioperative outcomes. J Urol, 182, 866-72 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.037
  3. Eisenberg MS, Brandina R, Gill IS (2010). Current status of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Curr Opin Urol, 20, 365-70. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0b013e32833ce7dc
  4. Elsamra SE, Leone AR, Lasser MS, et al (2013). Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison of short-term outcomes and cost. J Endourol, 27, 182-8. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2012.0210
  5. Fardoun T, Chaste D, Oger E, et al (2014). Predictive factors of hemorrhagic complications after partial nephrectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol, 40, 85-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2013.11.006
  6. Ferguson JE 3rd, Goyal RK, Raynor MC, et al (2012). Cost analysis of robot-assisted laparoscopic versus hand-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Endourol, 26, 1030-7. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0568
  7. Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Lane BR, et al (2007). Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors. J Urol, 178, 41-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.038
  8. Kane CJ, Mallin K, Ritchey J, et al (2008). Renal cell cancer stage migration: analysis of the national cancer data base. Cancer, 113, 78-83. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23518
  9. Kinoshita H, Nakagawa K, Usui Y, et al (2015). High-definition resolution three-dimensional imaging systems in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: randomized comparative study with high-definition resolution two-dimensional systems. Surg Endosc, 29, 2203-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3925-8
  10. Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Canfield S, et al (2015). EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2014 update. Eur Urol, 67, 913-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.005
  11. MacLennan S, Imamura M, Lapitan MC, et al (2012). Systematic review of oncological outcomes following surgical management of localised renal cancer. Eur Urol, 61, 972-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.039
  12. Marszalek M, Meixl H, Polajnar M, et al (2009). Laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison of 200 patients. Eur Urol, 55, 1171-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.01.042
  13. Miller DC, Hollingsworth JM, Hafez KS, et al (2006). Partial nephrectomy for small renal masses: an emerging quality of care concern? J Urol, 175, 853-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00422-2
  14. Minervini A, Siena G, Antonelli A, et al (2014). Open versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for clinical T1a renal masses: a matched-pair comparison of 280 patients with TRIFECTA outcomes (RECORd Project). World J Urol, 32, 257-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1155-7
  15. Patel HR, Ribal MJ, Arya M, et al (2007). Is it worth revisiting laparoscopic three-dimensional visualization? A validated assessment. Urol, 70, 47-9.
  16. Pierorazio PM, Patel HD, Feng T, et al (2011). Robotic-assisted versus traditional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison of outcomes and evaluation of learning curve. Urol, 78, 813-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.04.065
  17. Smith R, Schwab K, Day A, et al (2014). Effect of passive polarizing three-dimensional displays on surgical performance for experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Br J Surg, 101, 1453-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9601
  18. Van Poppel H (2010). Efficacy and safety of nephron-sparing surgery. Int J Urol, 17, 314-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2010.02482.x
  19. Wagner OJ, Hagen M, Kurmann A, et al (2012). Three-dimensional vision enhances task performance independently of the surgical method. Surg Endosc, 26, 2961-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2295-3
  20. Wang XZ, Yu ZX, Guo RJ, et al (2014). Application of laparospic ultrasonography in surgery of small renal cell carcinoma. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 9113-6. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.21.9113
  21. Winfield HN, Donovan JF, Godet AS, et al (1993). Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: initial case report for benign disease. J Endourol, 7, 521-6. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.1993.7.521
  22. Zhang X, Shen Z, Zhong S, et al (2013). Comparison of perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted vs laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a meta-analysis. BJU Int, 112, 1133-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12255
  23. Zini L, Patard JJ, Capitanio U, et al (2009). The use of partial nephrectomy in European tertiary care centers. Eur J Surg Oncol, 35, 636-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2008.07.008