Search

Purpose: Laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy (LESSDN) is a feasible and effective procedure because of its non-invasiveness and better cosmetic outcomes. However, there have been few multi-institutional studies conducted by multiple surgeons on LESSDN. We retrospectively compared the clinical data and outcomes between LESSDN and conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) at multiple institutes in Japan., Materials and Methods: From 2009 to 2015, the clinical data of 223 donors who underwent LESSDN and 151 donors who underwent LDN were collected from 10 institutes. All LESSDNs were performed transperitoneally, whereas LDNs were performed transperitoneally (P-LDN) in 75 patients and retroperitoneally (R-LDN) in 76 patients., Results: In the LESSDN group, the single-incision site was pararectal in 155 (69.5%) patients and umbilical in 65 (29.1%) patients. Multiple surgeons (one to eight per institute) performed the LESSDN. No significant differences were observed between the three groups regarding estimated blood loss and warm ischemic time. The operative time was significantly shorter in the LESSDN group than in the R-LDN group (p = 0.018). No significant differences were observed regarding the rates of blood transfusion, open conversion, visceral injuries, and postoperative complications. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed regarding the dose of analgesic and the rate of delayed graft function. One patient required open conversion due to injury to the renal artery. Selection of LESS procedure was not an independent risk factor for the median serum creatinine level of above 1.27 mg/dL in recipients at 1 year after kidney transplantation., Conclusion: The results showed the technical feasibility of LESSDN compared with the standard LDNs in a multi-institutional and multi-surgeon setting. A few observed non-negligible complications and the significantly higher levels of serum creatinine in patients who underwent LESSDN indicate that this procedure should be employed cautiously when performed by surgeons without ample experience in performing LESS procedures.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess the efficacy of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) nephrectomy in hemodialysis patients, we compared outcomes between LESS nephrectomy and conventional laparoendoscopic nephrectomy in hemodialysis patients with dialysis-related renal tumors., Material and Methods: A total of 16 hemodialysis patients who underwent LESS nephrectomy (LESS-N; n = 8) or conventional laparoendoscopic nephrectomy (C-N; n = 8) between November 2003 and July 2012 were retrospectively evaluated. Outcomes were compared between the two groups., Results: Patient and tumor characteristics were similar between the LESS-N and C-N groups. The mean operative duration was longer in the LESS-N than in the C-N group (231.0 ± 26.7 min versus 188.6 ± 36.4 min; p = .025). The mean estimated blood loss was lower in the LESS-N compared with the C-N group (26.4 ± 14.4 ml versus 65.6 ± 45.2 ml; p = .047). Postoperative complications were observed in three cases, comprising one case of retroperitoneal hematoma in the LESS-N group and one case each of peritoneal hematoma and retroperitoneal abscess in the C-N group. Surgical scarring was minimal in the LESS-N group., Conclusions: Although there is a little extension of the operating time, LESS nephrectomy in hemodialysis patients is a feasible procedure compared with the conventional method.

Introduction: We previously reported cases of laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy performed through an umbilical or pararectal incision. To improve cosmesis and operability, we performed three Pfannenstiel laparoendoscopic reduced-port nephrectomies., Materials and Surgical Technique: In the first case, a GelPOINT access was placed through a 2-cm umbilical incision, and two additional 3-mm trocars were inserted. The specimen was extracted through a 4-cm Pfannenstiel incision. In the second and third cases, a GelPOINT access was placed through a 5-cm Pfannenstiel incision, and two additional 3-mm trocars were inserted. The specimens were extracted without additional skin incisions. In all cases, the endoscope and vessel-sealing device were inserted through the GelPOINT access. We used 3-mm scissors, dissecting forceps, and bipolar forceps., Discussion: The operating time and estimated blood loss were 228, 280, and 155 min and 10, 410, and 5 mL, respectively. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. The 3-mm forceps showed similar efficacy as the conventional 5-mm forceps. Therefore, a Pfannenstiel reduced-port nephrectomy using 3-mm working trocars is a safe and feasible procedure with good cosmesis., (© 2016 Japan Society for Endoscopic Surgery, Asia Endosurgery Task Force and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

A 51 year-old man admitted to our hospital for macroscopic hematuria and right abdominal mass. CT demonstrated a large hypervascular mass and tumor thrombus in the inferior vena cava and right atrium. We diagnosed right renal cancer (stage III), and he underwent radical nephrectomy and resection of tumor thrombus with extracorporeal circulation. Operative time was 9 hours. Time for extracorporeal circulation was 119 minutes, and it took 60 minutes for intraoperative balloon occlusion of descending aorta in order to arrest hemorrhage. Pathological diagnosis was clear cell carcinoma of the kidney (pT3c, N0, M0). Four days after surgery, paraplegia was evident, and a diagnosis of spinal cord infarction was made based on neurologic examination and MRI findings. In cases with such a surgery requiring extracorporeal circulation, preoperative meeting with cardiologists and anesthetists is indispensable in order to fully understand the possible complications. Especially, to keep a careful watch and prepare for spinal cord ischemia is mandatory.

Objective To report on a multi-institutional series of non-robotic urological laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in Japan. Methods Consecutive cases of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery carried out between February 2009 and December 2012 at nine academic institutions were included. We examined the surgical outcomes, including conversion and complications rates. Results Four hundred and sixty-nine cases were included in the analysis. The most common procedure was adrenalectomy ( n = 177) and the second most common procedure was radical nephrectomy ( n = 143). The procedures also included nephroureterectomy ( n = 40), living donor nephrectomy ( n = 40), pyeloplasty ( n = 30), urachal remnant excision ( n = 9), simple nephrectomy ( n = 7), radical prostatectomy ( n = 6) and others ( n = 17). The access sites included umbilicus ( n = 248, 53%) and other sites ( n = 221, 47%). A transperitoneal approach was used in 385 cases (82%), and retroperitoneal approach in 84 cases (18%). The median operation time of all procedures was 198 min. Conversion to reduced port surgery, conventional laparoscopy, or open surgery was noted in 27 cases (5.8%), 12 cases (2.6%), and two cases (0.4%), respectively, with an overall conversion rate of 8.7%. Intraoperative complications occurred in 10 cases (2.1%). Post-operative complications were noted in 29 cases (6.2%), including five major complications (1.1%). No mortality was recorded in this series. Conclusions Non-robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery is technically feasible and safe for various urologic diseases in Japan. Furthermore, urological laparoendoscopic single-site surgery is a promising minimally invasive surgical option that is feasible for experienced urological surgeons in intermediate-volume centers as well as high-volume centers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present here the patient undergoing laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) retroperitoneal radical nephrectomy while receiving hemodialysis. An 81-year-old man under hemodialysis for 6 years was incidentally discovered to have two left renal masses with acquired cystic disease of the kidney (ACDK). A 4-cm flank incision for GelPort was made. Three trocars were inserted into the retroperitoneum through GelPort. After division of the renal vessels and ureter, the kidney was placed into the extraction bag and was retrieved through flank incision without any extra skin incision. There were no intraoperative and postoperative complications. This procedure offers an effective, minimally invasive therapeutic alternative to the standard laparoscopic technique in high-risk end-stage renal disease patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]