Estudio comparativo de la extracción de la pieza de nefrectomía laparoscópica mediante una incisión de tipo Pfannenstiel / Comparative study of intact specimen extraction in laparoscopic nephrectomy by pfannenstiel incision

Objetivos Nuestro objetivo es demostrar que la incisión de Pfannenstiel presenta un perfil más seguro en cuanto a complicaciones postoperatorias frente a otro tipo de incisiones que habitualmente se utilizan para la extracción renal laparoscópica. Material y métodos Estudio retrospectivo y comparativo de 256 pacientes intervenidos de nefrectomía o nefroureterectomía. Dividimos a los pacientes en dos grupos: extracción renal mediante incisión de Pfannenstiel (grupo 1) y extracción renal mediante otro tipo de incisiones (grupo 2). Evaluamos: aparición de eventración y evisceración clínica y subclínica, presencia de infección bacteriana significativa, presencia de dolor, aparición de seroma, hematoma/sangrado, dehiscencia de la herida y parálisis muscular en cada paciente. Resultados Los pacientes del grupo Pfannenstiel presentaron una tasa de complicaciones derivadas de la herida de 11,72% frente a 27,34% en el grupo no-Pfannenstiel, p = 0,002, siendo significativo la menor tasa de dehiscencia (5,5 vs. 12,5%, p = 0,047) y seroma (3,1% vs. 7,8%, p = 0,022). El modelo de regresión logística multivariante mostró que la incisión de Pfannenstiel es un predictor de prevención de complicaciones derivadas de la herida quirúrgica (OR = 0,34, p = 0,005). Conclusiones La elección de una incisión de Pfannenstiel supuso una menor incidencia de dehiscencia y seroma de la herida quirúrgica, permitiendo la extracción de piezas de nefrectomía más voluminosas y con una menor estancia hospitalaria, lo que la convierte en una alternativa válida y segura, con un favorable perfil de complicaciones con respecto a otro tipo de incisiones (AU)

Objectives The aim of our study is to demonstrate that the Pfannenstiel incision is a reliable option in terms of postoperative complications compared to other types of incisions usually performed for kidney extraction after laparoscopic nephrectomy. Materials and methods Retrospective and comparative study of 256 patients who underwent laparoscopic nephrectomy or nephroureterectomy. Patients were divided into two groups: specimen extraction by Pfannenstiel incision (group 1) and specimen extraction by way of other incisions (group 2). Incisional hernia, surgical site infection, pain score, seroma, haematoma/bleeding, wound dehiscence and muscle paralysis were analyzed in each patient. Results Patients in Pfannenstiel group presented a rate of wound complications of 11.72% vs 27.34% with other incisions, p = 0.002, it was significantly inferior the rate of wound dehiscence (5.5% vs 12.5%, p = 0.047) and seroma (3.1% vs 7.8%, p = 0.022). Using multivariate logistic regression, Pfannenstiel incision was a significant protective predictor factor for wound complications (OR = 0.34, p = 0.005). Conclusions The Pfannenstiel incision allowed the extraction of bigger kidney masses with less incidence of dehiscence, seroma and in general wound complications. The hospital stay was lower in Pfannenstiel extraction group. These results present this incision as a reliable and safe option in the decision of which incision to select (AU)

Comparative study of intact specimen extraction in laparoscopic nephrectomy by Pfannenstiel incision.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study is to demonstrate that the Pfannenstiel incision is a reliable option in terms of postoperative complications compared to other types of incisions usually performed for kidney extraction after laparoscopic nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective and comparative study of 256 patients who underwent laparoscopic nephrectomy or nephroureterectomy. Patients were divided into two groups: specimen extraction by Pfannenstiel incision (group 1) and specimen extraction by way of other incisions (group 2). Incisional hernia, surgical site infection, pain score, seroma, haematoma/bleeding, wound dehiscence and muscle paralysis were analyzed in each patient. RESULTS: Patients in Pfannenstiel group presented a rate of wound complications of 11.72% vs. 27.34% with other incisions, p=0.002, it was significantly inferior the rate of wound dehiscence (5.5% vs. 12.5%, p=0.047) and seroma (3.1% vs. 7.8%, p=0.022). Using multivariate logistic regression, Pfannenstiel incision was a significant protective predictor factor for wound complications (OR=0.34, p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The Pfannenstiel incision allowed the extraction of bigger kidney masses with less incidence of dehiscence, seroma and in general wound complications. The hospital stay was lower in Pfannenstiel extraction group. These results present this incision as a reliable and safe option in the decision of which incision to select.

Non-pancreatic Pseudocyst Presenting as a Giant Retroperitoneal Mass

Objective: To assess the non-pancreatic retroperitoneal pseudocyst in the differenctial diagnosis of retroperitoneal cystic masses. Methods: To report a case. Results: We present a case of a 50-year-old woman with symptoms of pain and a palpable abdominal mass. In imaging studies a 13-cm retroperitoneal cystic mass with left ureterohydronephrosis was observed. Surgical excision of the mass was performed with pathological diagnosis of non-pancreatic retroperitoneal pseudocyst. Conclusion: Non-pancreatic retroperitoneal pseudocyst is an entity with a very low incidence, benign, usually asymptomatic. It can grow compressing on adjacent structures. The definitive diagnosis is histopathological and the treatment is surgical. It's important to carry out complete exeresis to avoid recurrences (AU)

Objetivo: Considerar el pseudoquiste retroperitonealno pancreático en el diagnóstico diferencial de masas quísticas retroperitoneales.Métodos: Presentación de un caso clínico.Resultados: Se presenta el caso de una mujer de 50años con dolor y masa abdominal palpable. En pruebasde imagen complementarias se objetiva una masa quísticaretroperitoneal de 13 cm que condiciona uréterohidronefrosis izquierda. Se realiza exéresis quirúrgica de la masa condiagnóstico anatomopatológico de pseudoquiste retroperitoneal no pancreático.Conclusión: El pseudoquiste retroperitoneal no pancreático es una entidad con una incidencia muy baja, benigna, habitualmente asintomática y que puede alcanzargran tamaño comprometiendo estructuras vecinas. El diagnóstico definitivo es anatomopatológico y el tratamiento esquirúrgico, siendo importante realizar la exéresis completapara evitar recurrencias (AU)