Search

Objective: To study the impact of periarterial papaverine application on the postoperative glomerular filtration rate (GFR) after retroperitoneoscopic partial nephrectomy (PN)., Materials and Methods: A consecutive series of patients underwent retroperitoneoscopic PN with intraoperative, periarterial application of 50 mg of papaverine. These patients were compared with a group of patients who underwent retroperitoneoscopic PN at this institution prior to this protocol. Patients were matched for preoperative GFR, tumor size, ischemia time, and operative time., Results: In total, 37 patients who received periarterial papaverine (P) and 37 patients without periarterial papaverine, who served as controls (C), were included in this analysis and matched according to preoperative GFR (P: 98.2, C: 97.8 ml/min/1.72 m(2)), tumor size (P: 2.5 cm, C: 2.5 cm), ischemia time (P: 22 min, C: 23 min), and operative time (P: 86 min, C: 85 min). Postoperative GFR was 86.4 ml/min/1.72 m(2) in controls (C) and 91.8 ml/min/1.72 m(2) in the papaverine group. The pre- to postoperative decrease in GFR was reduced by 56.9% in the papaverine group compared with controls (relative decrease in GFR: P: 5.3% vs. C: 12.5%; P = 0.02). Intra- and postoperative complications were pneumothorax (P: n = 2, C: n = 3), urinary fistula (P: n = 0, C: n = 2), and one suture-fixed drainage (P: n = 1, C: n = 0). No papaverine-related side effects were observed, and the surgical procedure was not hampered by the periarterial application of papaverine., Conclusion: As with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, periarterial papaverine seems to improve postoperative renal function after retroperitoneoscopic partial nephrectomy. This nephroprotective effect might be particularly advantageous for patients with an impaired renal function preoperatively.

Objectives: To compare surgical and functional results of both surgical approaches to endoscopic partial nephrectomy. It is currently performed either by the transperitoneal (t) or the retroperitoneal (r) approach., Methods: This was a retrospective, matched-pair comparison of 105 patients who underwent either transperitoneal laparoscopic (Graz) or retroperitoneoscopic (Klagenfurt) partial nephrectomy for clinical T1a renal masses., Results: A total of 35 patients after transperitoneal laparoscopic and 70 patients after retroperitoneoscopic partial nephrectomy were included to this analysis after matching for age (T: 59.3 vs R: 60.1 a), preoperative glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (T: 93.2 vs R: 96.1 mL/min) and tumor size (T: 2.4 vs R: 2.5 cm). Nephrometry scores were comparable between groups and were low, medium, and high in 54.3%, 45.7%, and 0% (t) and 55.7%, 42.9%, and 1.4% (r) of patients (P = .9). Operative time (T: 139.3 minutes vs. R: 83.9 minutes; P < .001) and hospitalization (T: 7 days, R: 5 days; P < .001) were shorter in the retroperitoneoscopic group. Ischemia time (T: 24.3 minutes, R: 22.6 minutes) and postsurgical GFR (T: 86.6 vs R: 90.0 mL/min), postsurgical GFR-decrease (T: 7.1%, R: 6.2%, P = .9) and decline of hemoglobin (T: 17.1%, R: 16.6%) were comparable. Complications were 4 nephrectomies (T: n = 1, R: n = 3), 2 revisions for hemorrhage (R: n = 2), 4 pneumothorax (R: n = 4), and 2 urinary fistulas (T: n = 2). The positive surgical margin rate was comparable between groups (T: n = 3, R: n = 5)., Conclusions: Transperitoneal laparoscopic and retroperitoneoscopic partial nephrectomy provide comparable surgical and functional results. One advantage of the retroperitoneoscopic access seems to be a shorter total surgical time., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Laparoscopy is currently challenging the role of the open approach for nephron-sparing surgery (NSS), yet comparative studies on this issue are scant., Objective: To compare surgical, oncologic, and functional outcomes after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN)., Design, Setting, and Participants: We undertook matched-pair (age, sex, tumour size) analysis of patients who underwent elective NSS for renal masses either by laparoscopic (Klagenfurt) or open (Vienna) access., Measurements: Surgical data, complications, histologic and oncologic data, and short- and long-term renal function of the open and laparoscopic groups were compared., Results and Limitations: In total, 200 patients matched for age, sex, and tumour size entered the study after either LPN or OPN and were followed for a mean of 3.6 yr. Surgical, ischemia, and hospitalisation times were shorter in the LPN group (p<0.001). Blood loss and complication rates were comparable in both groups. Malignant tumours were pT1 stage renal-cell cancer only in both groups. The positive surgical margin (PSM) rate was 4% after LPN and 2% after OPN (p=0.5); positive margins were not a risk factor for disease recurrence. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-yr local recurrence-free survival (RFS) were 97% after LPN and 98% after OPN (p=0.8); the respective numbers for distant free survival were 99% and 96% (p=0.2). Five-year overall survival (OS) for patients with pT1 stage renal cell carcinoma (RCC) was 96% after LPN and 85% after OPN. The decline in glomerular filtration rate at the last available follow-up (LPN: 10.9%; OPN: 10.6%) was similar in both groups (p=0.8). We recognise the retrospective nature, limited follow-up, and sample size as shortcomings of this study., Conclusions: In experienced hands, LPN provides similar results compared to open surgery. PSM rates were comparable after LPN and OPN. Current experience questions the indication of secondary nephrectomy in these patients.

Management of arterial access sites following percutaneous endovascular procedures is associated with patient discomfort and local complications. A new vascular sealing device, comprised of a balloon delivery catheter and a flowable procoagulant consisting of thrombin and collagen, was tested. Immediately following catheterization 200 patients (age, 66.1 +/- 11.2 years) were treated with the sealing device (Duett). Of these 200 patients, 132 underwent diagnostic catheterization, 67 underwent percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, and one underwent percutaneous transluminal angioplasty. The sheath sizes included 2-5 Fr, 166-6 Fr, 25-7 Fr and 7-8 Fr. All patients undergoing diagnostic procedures received at least 5,000 U of intravenous heparin during the procedure. The Duett was used successfully in 198/200 (99%) patients immediately following completion of the endovascular procedure. In two patients a device malfunction resulted in uncomplicated crossover to manual compression. The time to hemostasis ranged from 3 to 5 minutes. All patients were walking 2 to 5 hours following the procedure unless a complication had occurred. No patient experienced leg ischemia, required surgical repair of the arterial access site, or had an infection at the site. In three patients (1.5%), a pseudoaneurysm occurred and was successfully treated with ultrasound-guided compression and three patients received a blood transfusion. No late complications were observed following hospital discharge. This novel vascular sealing device successfully achieves rapid hemostasis and allows early ambulation following percutaneous endovascular procedures with a low incidence of complications.