Laparoscopic promontory sacral colpopexy: is the posterior, recto-vaginal, mesh mandatory?

OBJECTIVE(S): The aim of our retrospective study was to determine if systematic placement of a posterior mesh, in addition to an anterior vesico-vaginal mesh, is necessary for laparoscopic treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. METHODS: A laparoscopic promontory sacral colpopexy was performed in 108 patients, including 55 patients with a concurrent laparoscopic Burch procedure (50.9%). We compared 33 patients treated with a single anterior mesh (SAM) and 71 treated with a double, anterior and posterior, mesh (DM). RESULTS: The difference between the SAM and DM groups was statistically significant in terms of posterior compartment failure (rectocele and/or enterocele): 31.3% and 5.9%, respectively (p=0.0006). This significant difference persisted in the Burch (B) group (p=0.001), but not in the non-Burch (NB) group (p=0.98). Among the SAM group, this difference between the B and NB groups, was significant (57.1% versus 0%; p=0.0015) and above all not a single posterior failure was observed in the NB group. CONCLUSION(S): The placement of a posterior mesh, if highly effective, appeared unnecessary in the absence of an associated Burch procedure or a patent posterior prolapse. The posterior mesh also increased risk of postoperative complications and side effects.

Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for T1 renal cancer: the gold standard? A comparison of laparoscopic vs open nephrectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the complication rate and clinical follow-up of patients treated for T1 renal cancer by open or laparoscopic nephrectomy at the same institution, as this approach appears to be attractive for treating small renal cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1995 and 2002, 39 patients underwent retroperitoneal laparoscopic and 26 transperitoneal open radical nephrectomy for T1 renal cancer (TNM 1997). Variables before during and after surgery, e.g. cancer recurrence, were compared between the groups. RESULTS: There were no differences between the laparoscopic and open groups in age, sex ratio, weight, height, fitness score, operative duration (134 vs 133 min), minor or major complications, tumour diameter, Fuhrman grade or length of follow-up. Patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery had less blood loss (133 vs 357 mL, P < 0.001), less need for transfusion (none vs 150 mL, P = 0.04), a lower consumption of analgesia drugs, and shorter hospitalization (5.5 vs 8.8 days, P < 0.001). With a mean follow-up of 20.4 months there was no recurrence or tumour progression. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for patients with T1 renal cancer is a safe, reliable procedure that decreases hospitalization time and bleeding, and ensures the same cancer control as open nephrectomy.

Complete solo laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial experience.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the feasibility of "complete solo" (CS) laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) performed solely with robotic manipulation of the laparoscope and without any human assistant at all. A comparison was made between CS LRP and the standard technique to identify the advantages and drawbacks. METHODS: Sixteen consecutive patients undergoing CS LRP were compared with the last 16 patients undergoing standard LRP. The standard procedure was performed with five trocars and one human assistant. Therefore, the surgeon had three instruments immediately available and could switch quickly from one to another, while the assistant held the laparoscope and a retractor. The CS method used a voice-controlled robotic arm to manipulate the laparoscope and a mechanical arm for the assisting instrument. RESULTS: The mean operative time in the CS and standard groups was 324 and 347 minutes, respectively (P >0.5). An additional human assistant was required, for 1 hour, in 3 patients of each group. No significant difference was noted between the two groups in terms of catheterization time, hospital stay, positive margin rate, complications, short-term cancer control, or functional results. The CS method has been demonstrated to be highly cost-effective compared with the standard technique. CONCLUSIONS: The CS LRP is feasible and compares favorably with the standard technique. It offers unique advantages in terms of direct control of the operative view, standardization of the assistance, and higher stability of the laparoscope, thus greatly enhancing the surgeon's comfort. The diminished need for human operative assistance provides significant economic and organizational benefits.

Multi-institutional study of complications in 1085 laparoscopic urologic procedures.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the incidence of the complications in laparoscopic urologic procedures with regard to clinical presentation, etiology, and treatment. METHODS: From January 1994 to December 2000, 1085 laparoscopic procedures were performed at three institutions in 1075 patients (702 men, 373 women). A referent surgeon for laparoscopy was at each institution. The major procedures were radical prostatectomy (n = 232), different types of nephrectomy (n = 171) and nephroureterectomy (n = 15), adrenalectomy (n = 130), pyeloplasty (n = 61), pelvic lymph node dissection (n = 130), genitourinary prolapse repair (n = 86), bladder neck suspension (n = 104), and treatment of benign kidney pathologic findings (lithiasis, cysts, and diverticula, n = 55). The complications were listed by incidence and etiology according to the procedure attempted. RESULTS: A total of 75 complications (6.9%) occurred in this multi-institutional series. The mortality rate was 0.09%, and the conversion rate was 2.1%. Vascular (n = 7) and visceral injuries (n = 11) occurred in 24% of complications. Hematomas (n = 10), urinomas (n = 8), and wound infections (n = 7) at the trocar sites were the most frequent postoperative surgical complications. Pulmonary disorders (n = 9) and urinary infections (n = 9) were predominant in the postoperative medical problems. CONCLUSIONS: Even though it appears to be minimally invasive, laparoscopy remains major surgery, with serious complications possible. These complications should be preventable with better mastery of the different steps of the procedures. Increased knowledge of the possible complications is essential for urologists in laparoscopic training and may help them improve their learning curve.

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The Créteil experience.

OBJECTIVES: In an effort to reduce the morbidity associated to radical prostatectomy, we implemented laparoscopic surgery to this advanced ablative and reconstructive procedure. In our study, we describe our operative technique and assess our results in terms of oncologic cure, continence and potency. METHODS: 200 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. 66 of these patients were either referred, or operated during surgical demonstrations. Thus, complete evaluation is based on a homogeneous personal series of 134 patients and was performed by an independent clinical analyst. There were 91 T1 and 43 T2. We did not perform pelvic lymph node excision in 78 patients whose PSA was less than 10 ng/ml and the Gleason score of endorectal biopsies was below 7. The surgical procedure recapitulated the steps of traditional retropubic prostatectomy with one basic difference however: the first step of the technique consisted in a rectoprostatic cleavage, which was done transperitoneally. Except for the first 10 patients, the vesicourethral reconstruction was performed either with two hemi-circumferential or a single circumferential running suture. RESULTS: All interventions were performed as planned, no conversions were necessary, and only 4 patients required blood transfusion. Operating time decreased with growing experience; after the first 20 patients the usual operating time was 3.5 h without and 4 h with lymphadenectomy. The surgical complication rate was 22.5% in the first 40 patients, and 3.2% in the remaining 94 patients. Except for the first 10 patients, the mean hospital stay was 6.1 days and bladder catheterization 4.8 days. Median catheterization time was 4 days. Histological study of the specimen showed pT2 disease in 101 patients and pT3 in 33 patients, the rate of positive margins was 16.8 and 48.8%, respectively. At 1 year, overall erection rate (with or without sexual intercourse) was 56%, the rate of patients without pad was 86.2% during the day and 100% during the night. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic environment seems to comply with the oncologic goals of radical prostatectomy. Improved intraoperative visualization and magnification may provide benefits for the preservation of continence and potency by allowing a more precise dissection and vesicourethral reconstruction. Despite longer operative times and the steep learning curve this new technique is currently proliferating due to expectations of decreased postoperative morbidity and better quality of life.

Experience with retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy in 115 procedures.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic adrenalectomy has become an effective option for removing small adrenal tumors. We evaluated the retroperitoneal approach with regard to operative complications, morbidity and hospital stay. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 1995 and March 2000 we performed a total of 115 laparoscopic adrenalectomies via the retroperitoneal approach, including 70 on the left and 45 on the right side, in 64 women and 42 men 17 to 74 years old (mean age 49.3) with adrenal neoplasms. Average adrenal tumor size was 31 mm. (range 10 to 65). All procedures required 4 trocars and mean operative time was 118 minutes (range 45 to 240). RESULTS: There were no patient deaths. The conversion rate to open surgery was 0.8% and estimated blood loss was 77 ml. (range 0 to 550). At a mean followup of 23.4 months, morbidity was 15.5% with intraoperative vascular injury in 3 cases (3.4%) and postoperative complications in 12.1%, including wound infection, deep hematoma, parietal dehiscence and severe pneumopathy. Average hospital stay was 4 days and mean duration of analgesic requirement was 2 days (range 1 to 5). CONCLUSIONS: The retroperitoneal approach to laparoscopic adrenalectomy appears to be minimally invasive and safe for adrenal tumors not larger than 5 cm.

Extraperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a multicenter study of 55 procedures.

PURPOSE: We assessed the feasibility, reproducibility and morbidity of retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 55 retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasties were performed at 3 institutions between September 1996 and May 2000 in 33 women and 21 men. Results were analyzed in regard to radiological assessment by excretory urography at 3 months, complications and hospital stay. RESULTS: We performed dismembered pyeloplasty in 48 cases and Fenger plasty in 7 cases. Crossing vessels were noted in 23 patients. The conversion rate was 5.4%. Mean operative time was 185 minutes (range 100 to 260), mean hospital stay was 4.5 days (range 1 to 14) and mean followup was 14.4 months (range 6 to 43.6). The overall complication rate was 12.7%. Complications in 7 patients included hematoma in 3, urinoma in 1, severe pyelonephritis in 1 and anastomotic stricture in 2 requiring open pyeloplasty at 3 weeks and delayed balloon incision at 13 months, respectively. Excretory urography in 50 patients and ultrasound in 4 showed decreased hydronephrosis in 88.9% at 3 months. Normal physical activity and absent pain were reported by 47 patients (87%) 1 month after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty seems to be a valuable alternative to open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. The long-term outcome must be assessed before this procedure may be definitively validated.

Results of retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy.

PURPOSE: To analyze the retroperitoneal approach to laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in terms of feasibility, safety, morbidity, and cancer control. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of 50 consecutive patients with renal cancer underwent radical nephrectomy via the retroperitoneal laparoscopic approach from 1995 through 1999. RESULTS: The mean operative time was 139 minutes (range 60-330 minutes) with a mean of 149.78-mL operative blood loss (0-1500 mL). The mean renal size was 100 mm (70-150 mm) with a mean tumor size of 38.6 mm (20-90 mm). The postoperative hospital was 6 days (2-13 days). Three open conversions were necessary: one for laparoscopically uncontrolled bleeding and two because obesity interfered with surgery. We noted two major complication and two minor complications. Two disease progression have been noted to date. One patient with a pT3 grade 2 renal-cell carcinoma had a local recurrence with liver metastasis 9 months after the procedure and died 19.7 months after radical nephrectomy. Another patient with a pT3aN+M+ cancer died 23.1 months after the procedure. CONCLUSION: Retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy for kidney cancer requires further assessment. It seems to have several advantages over open radical nephrectomy and to be effective and safe for small (<50-mm) renal tumors.

Experience with retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy for pheochromocytoma.

PURPOSE: Although laparoscopic adrenalectomy has become the preferred surgical treatment of benign adrenal masses, for pheochromocytoma it is limited by concerns over hypertensive events related to early access to the adrenal vein. We report our experience with retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy for pheochromocytoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 1995 to December 1999, 21 retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomies (left 12 and right 9) were performed for symptomatic pheochromocytoma in 11 men and 9 women 17 to 68 years old (mean age 46). To our knowledge pheochromocytoma was always diagnosed by increased urinary catecholamine, computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and 131iodine iobenguane scintigraphy. RESULTS: There were no conversions to open surgery. The operating time ranged from 100 to 150 minutes (mean 116). Mean blood loss was 140 ml. (minimum 550), and none of the patients required transfusion. Hemorrhage due to adrenal vein injury occurred in 1 patient and was controlled intraoperatively. Average postoperative hospital stay was 3.4 days (range 1 to 12). The mean diameter of the excised masses was 38 mm. (range 15 to 70). Postoperative complications occurred in 4 cases, including hematoma in 1, trocar wound infections in 2 and eventration in 1 after 1 year. With a mean followup of 21.6 months (range 6 to 46), all patients had normal urinary catecholamine levels and 18 had normal blood pressure without treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy can be safely performed for small (less than 5 cm. diameter) pheochromocytoma. Retroperitoneal laparoscopy is a direct approach that allows the surgeon to control the adrenal vein first, thereby avoiding hypertensive events.

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot.

PURPOSE: Robotics in surgery is a recent innovation. This technology offers a number of attractive features in laparoscopy. It overcomes the difficulties with fixed port sites by restoring all 6 degrees of freedom at the instrument tips, provides new possibilities for miniaturization of surgical tasks and allows remote controlled surgery. We investigated the applicability of remote controlled robotic surgery to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our previous experience with laparoscopic prostatectomy served as a basis for adapting robotic surgery to this procedure. A surgeon at a different location who activated the tele-manipulators of the da Vinci* robotic system performed all steps of the intervention. A scrub nurse and second surgeon who stood at patient side had limited roles to port and instrument placement, exposure of the operative field, assistance in hemostasis and removal of the operative specimen. Our patient was a 63-year-old man presenting with a T1c tumor discovered on 1 positive sextant biopsy with a 3+3 Gleason score and 7 ng./ml. preoperative serum prostate specific antigen. RESULTS: The robot provided an ergonomic surgical environment and remarkable dexterity enhancement. Operating time was 420 minutes, and the hospital stay lasted 4 days. The bladder catheter was removed 3 days postoperatively, and 1 week later the patient was fully continent. Pathological examination showed a pT3a tumor with negative margins. CONCLUSIONS: Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is feasible. This new technology enhances surgical dexterity. Further developments in this field may have new applications in laparoscopic tele-surgery.

Vesicourethral anastomosis during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the running suture method.

Vesicourethral reconstruction is the most critical and time-consuming step of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. We describe the use of two hemicircumferential running sutures that has significantly simplified the procedure in our last 30 patients. The vesicourethral reconstruction took 31 minutes on average. Six months postoperatively, 84% of the patients were fully continent, and no bladder neck stenosis had occurred. The economy of intracorporeal suturing provided by this novel method, together with geometric factors such as the optimal position of the trocars, contributes to the improvement of ergonomy, allowing the surgeon to decrease operating times.

Carcinological risks and retroperitoneal laparoscopy.

PURPOSE: To determine the incidence of trocar site spillage, local recurrence, and metastatic disease associated with retroperitoneal laparoscopic tumor resection. METHODS: From 1994 to 1999, 228 retroperitoneal laparoscopic procedures were performed at our institution. Fifty-six procedures (24.6%) were for malignancies and comprised 41 radical nephrectomies and 8 partial nephrectomies for renal tumors, and 7 nephro-ureterectomies for renal pelvis tumors. The pathological stage and the status of surgical margins were noted according to the 1997 TNM classification. Postoperative follow-up data were obtained by means of physical and radiological examinations after 1 and 3 months, and then half-yearly. Trocar site seeding, local recurrence and metastatic disease were recorded. Kaplan-Meier actuarial analysis was used to determine the disease-free survival likelihood. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 24.9+/-13.85 months. All the patients had tumor-free surgical margins. No laparoscopic trocar site recurrences were identified. For laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: one patient had a local recurrence with hepatic metastasis of a pT(3)G(2) tumor after 9 months and died 19.7 months after the procedure. One patient with a pT(3a)G(3)M+ tumor died 23.1 months after radical nephrectomy without any sign of local recurrence. For laparoscopic nephro-ureterectomy: one patient with a pT(3)G(3) tumor had a local recurrence 12.1 months after the procedure and died 26.6 months after surgery. One patient with a pT(1)G(2) renal pelvis tumor had bone metastasis at 9 months and died 29 months after the procedure. The Kaplan-Meier actuarial disease-free survival rate was 91% at 54 months for radical nephrectomy, 61% at 30 months for nephro-ureterectomy and 100% at 49 months for partial nephrectomy. CONCLUSION: Malignancies of the upper urinary tract can be managed by means of retroperitoneal laparoscopy. Short-term results suggest that this procedure is not associated with an increased risk of portsite or local recurrence, and that disease-free survival is equivalent to that obtained with open surgery.

[Remote laparoscopic radical prostatectomy carried out with a robot. Report of a case]. / Prostatectomie radicale laparoscopique réalisée à distance par robot. A propos d'un cas.

Robotics has been commonly employed in numerous industrial fields for several decades. However, the application of this technology to surgery is a recent innovation. It provides new possibilities for facilitating specific surgical tasks, especially in the field of laparoscopy. We report a case of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy completed with the help of a remotely controlled da Vinci robot. This system offered a user friendly surgical platform and enhanced surgical dexterity. Operating time was 420 minutes and the hospital stay was 4 days. The bladder catheter was removed after 3 days. One week later, the patient was fully continent. Pathologic examination showed a pT3a tumor, with negative margins. Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is feasible. Further developments in this field of technology may have new applications in laparoscopic telesurgery.

Extraperitoneal laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: initial experience in 15 cases.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility and results of retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. METHODS: From September 1996 to January 1999, 15 patients underwent extraperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Aberrant vessels were noted in 4 patients. Dismembered pyeloplasty was performed in 7 patients and nondismembered Fenger plasty in 7 patients. Pyeloplasty was not possible in 1 patient. RESULTS: Fourteen of the 15 procedures were successfully completed. The procedure was not possible in 1 patient who had already undergone endopyelotomy repair. The mean operating time was 178 minutes (range 100 to 250), and the mean postoperative hospital stay was 4.8 days (range 1 to 14). Postoperative complications occurred in 3 patients (two hematomas and one urinoma). Radiographic assessment by intravenous urography 3 months after the procedure showed good results. CONCLUSIONS: Retroperitoneoscopy, by providing easy and rapid access to the retroperitoneal space, seems to be a valuable alternative treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preliminary results.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate our preliminary experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The indications for laparoscopy are currently being extended to complex oncologic procedures. METHODS: Forty-three men underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. We used five trocars. The surgical technique replicates the steps of traditional retropubic prostatectomy, except that the rectoprostatic cleavage plane is developed transperitoneally at the beginning of the procedure. In the first 10 patients, we performed the vesicourethral reconstruction with interrupted sutures; in the remaining 33 patients, we performed it with two hemicircumferential running sutures. The specimen was removed through the umbilical port site. RESULTS: Once the developmental phase with the first 10 patients was concluded, the median operating time was 4.3 hours without pelvic lymphadenectomy, and the median postoperative bladder catheterization was 4 days. Two (4.7%) of 43 patients underwent transfusion. Twelve patients (27.9%) had positive surgical margins; all patients had a postoperative prostate-specific antigen level of less than 0.1 ng/mL at 1 month. Rectal injury occurred in 1 patient, requiring colostomy, and 4 patients had urethrovesical anastomotic leakages requiring surgical repair. One month postoperatively, 36 patients (84%) were fully continent (no leakage). Six patients had had erections, and four stated they had had sexual intercourse. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has evolved to a fully standardized and reproducible procedure. The short-term oncologic and functional efficacy rates are equivalent to those for open surgery. The operating time is reasonable once the learning curve is over, and postoperative morbidity is diminished. Because of the improved visual accuracy, permitting more precise dissection, this technique has the potential to become an important advancement in urologic surgery.

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preliminary results.

BACKGROUND: Retropubic and perineal radical prostatectomy are used for curative treatment of localized prostate cancer. More complex urological procedures are now being done with laparoscopy. We present our initial results of transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty laparoscopic radical prostatectomies were performed between May 1998 and May 1999. The mean age at the time of surgery was 64.2 years. There were 14 stage T1c, 5 stage T2a and 1 stage T2b tumors. The preoperative PSA was 9. 3 ng/ml (normal <4 ng/ml). The Gleason score for positive specimens in 6 random echo-guided endorectal biopsies was 5.7. Four trocars were used. Insufflation pressure was 15 mmHg. The seminal vesicles were first dissected. The prostate was dissected free from the anterior face of the rectum to the prostate apex. Then the peritoneum was incised to find the apex of the prostate. The puboprostatic ligaments were isolated and cut, and the dorsal vein complex was ligated and cut to expose the urethra. The bladder neck was opened and dissected free from the prostate. The lateral pedicles were coagulated before sectioning the urethra. The radical prostatectomy specimen was left along the sigmoid colon, the bladder neck was reconstructed, and a urethrovesical anastomosis was performed with 6 interrupted sutures. The prostatectomy specimen was removed intact in a sack by enlarging the umbilical trocar port. All the prostatectomy specimens were processed according to the Standford protocol. Prostate weight, tumor weight, the Gleason score, and the tumor status of the capsule, seminal vesicles, lymph nodes and surgical margins were studied. RESULTS: The operating time was 385 min. Two patients were transfused. The mean hospital stay was 7. 8 days. The Foley catheter was removed 10.7 days after the operation. Specimen weight was 61 (28-126) g, the Gleason score was 5.9, and tumor volume was 1.4 ml. There were 18 stage pT2, 1 stage pTa (capsular effraction) and 1 stage pT3b (seminal vesicle invasion) tumors. There were four positive surgical margins (2 at the apex and 2 at the bladder neck). All the patients had a postoperative PSA level <0.1 ng/ml at 1 month. The first patient had urethrovesical anastomotic leakage, and required Foley catheterization for 21 days. There was 1 colostomy for rectal injury and 1 urinoma because of urethrovesical anastomotic leakage that required an open surgical procedure. One month after surgery, 15 (75%) patients were fully continent. Six patients had erections, and 5 stated having sexual intercourse. CONCLUSION: These preliminary results show that radical prostatectomy can be performed laparoscopically. Laparoscopy offered excellent vision of all the anatomical structures of the pelvis, permitting precise dissection. Long-term follow-up and further studies are required to confirm and improve these results.

[Nephrectomy in a living donor by retroperitoneal laparoscopy or lomboscopy]. / Prélèvement rénal chez le donneur vivant par voie laparoscopique rétropéritonéale ou lomboscopie.

INTRODUCTION: The advantages of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy are now well documented. This new approach can lower donor morbidity and could stimulate living related organ donation. We described our original operative technique and report our preliminary results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Since 1998, we have used the retroperitoneal laparoscopy in tree related living donors. Advantages and inconvenient of this new surgical procedure were discussed with each donors and inform consent obtained. The left kidney was harvested in the three cases. RESULTS: The operative time was inferior to 280 minutes, warm ischemia less than five minutes and bleeding less than 150 mL. Patients were discharged between the 2nd and 3rd post-operative days. CONCLUSION: Retroperitoneal laparoscopy is a valuable alternative in transplant centres with skilled laparoscopic surgeons.

Partial nephrectomy with retroperitoneal laparoscopy.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopy has gradually gained acceptance for a variety of ablative procedures of the retroperitoneal organs, and the indications are being extended to more complex reconstructive and organ preserving procedures. We report our experience with retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy was performed for benign conditions in 6, equivocal solid masses in 4 and indeterminate cysts in 3 patients. If malignancy was suspected, laparoscopic sonography was used to assess the intrarenal anatomy and the mass. To facilitate parenchymal closure during nephron sparing surgery we used a hemostatic biological glue that consisted of gelatin, resorcinol and formaldehyde. RESULTS: Average operating time was 113 minutes and average blood loss was 72 ml. Histological examination revealed malignancy in 1 of the 3 cystic lesions and 2 of the 4 equivocal solid masses. There were 2 postoperative urinomas. CONCLUSIONS: Partial nephrectomy with retroperitoneal laparoscopy is feasible, and has a reasonable operating time and blood loss. Laparoscopic ultrasound was an important decision making aid during surgery. The use of biological glue simplified hemostasis and closure of the collecting system but good quality drainage of the collecting system is still required to decrease the risk of urinoma. The development of surgical tools that allow bloodless and nontraumatic section of the renal parenchyma is required to facilitate laparoscopic nephron sparing surgery. The ultrasonic scalpel needs further evaluation in this setting.

Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy.

PURPOSE: We analyze the retroperitoneal approach to laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in regard to feasibility, safety, morbidity and cancer control, and compare results and outcomes in patients who underwent retroperitoneal laparoscopic or open radical nephrectomy from 1995 to 1998. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The records of 58 consecutive patients with renal cancer who underwent radical nephrectomy from 1995 through 1998 were reviewed. Of the patients 29 underwent open radical nephrectomy (group 1) and 29 underwent retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (group 2). Various parameters were compared and statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: The 2 groups were similar in regard to age, gender and side of the tumor. Operative time was slightly shorter in group 1 (mean 121.4 versus 145 minutes in group 2, p = 0.047). Mean tumor size plus or minus standard deviation was larger in group 1 (5.71 +/- 2.01 versus 4.02 +/- 1.87 cm. in group 2). Group 2 patients had significantly less operative blood loss (mean 100.0 versus 284.5 ml. in group 1, p < 0.005) and used significantly less parenteral pain medication (p < 0.05). Postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in group 1 (9.7 +/- 3.6 versus 4.8 +/- 2.0 days in group 2, p < 0.001), and the complication rate was higher (24 versus 8%, respectively). One group 1 patient died of renal cancer (pT2G2) after 14 months and local recurrence with hepatic metastasis occurred after 9 months in a group 2 patient with a pT3G2 tumor. CONCLUSIONS: Retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy for kidney cancer requires further assessment. It seems to have several advantages over open radical nephrectomy, and to be effective and safe for less than 50 cm. renal tumors but a risk of spillage cannot be ruled out for larger tumors.

Laparoscopic adrenalectomy: the retroperitoneal approach.

PURPOSE: Retroperitoneal laparoscopy, by providing direct access to the retroperitoneal cavity, is an interesting approach to urological surgery. We report our initial experience with retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 1995 and April 1997, 23 adrenalectomies were performed by retroperitoneal laparoscopy in 10 men and 12 women. The patients were placed in the lateral decubitus position and 5 trocars were used. The retroperitoneal working space was created by digital dissection and was completed by insufflation without balloon dissection. The surgical indications were Conn's adenoma in 12 cases, Cushing's adenoma in 4, bilateral adrenal hyperplasia (Cushing's disease) in 1 (treated in a single procedure), a nonfunctioning adenoma in 2, pheochromocytoma in 2 and adrenal metastasis in 1. RESULTS: We removed 7 right and 16 left adrenal glands in an average operating time of 97 minutes (range 45 to 160). Average tumor size was 26 mm. (range 10 to 40). Average hospital stay was 3.3 days (range 1 to 10). Blood loss was minimal. Postoperative analgesic requirements were moderate. Conversion to open surgery was not necessary. The morbidity rate was low, with 1 postoperative hematoma and 1 case of persistent fever (greater than 38.5C). CONCLUSIONS: Retroperitoneal adrenalectomy is a reliable and effective technique. At our institution retroperitoneal laparoscopy is now the standard adrenal surgery procedure for tumors less than 5 cm.