Objectives: To report our initial experience in retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) for moderately complex renal hilar tumors and summarize the feasibility of the retroperitoneal laparoscopic approach. Materials and Methods: 14 patients with renal hilar tumors underwent retroperitoneal LPN between June 2010 and January 2012 at our institution. All of the masses were confirmed in the hilar location by computed tomography preoperatively and then evaluated with the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scoring system; all were defined as moderately complex lesions. A three-port retroperitoneal approach with a dorsal incision was used in all cases. Patient baseline demographics, perioperative outcomes and pathological characteristics were recorded based on a retrospective data collection and telephone interview. Results: All operations were performed successfully without conversion to radical nephrectomy or open surgery. Only two complications of perirenal fluid collection occurred, but the patients recovered with active surveillance. Mean operative time was 134.3 min, mean estimated blood loss 133.2 ml, mean warm ischemia time 30.6 min and mean retroperitoneal drainage 2.2 days. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 4.7 days. No recurrence or metastasis occurred in these patients at a mean follow-up of 18.6 months. Conclusions: Our initial experience suggests that retroperitoneal LPN is a feasible, safe and effective procedure for moderately complex renal hilar tumors. Although it remains technically challenging, this approach can be recommended in some complex cases when in experienced hands.

Keywords:
Hilar tumors, Laparoscopic, Retroperitoneal, Partial nephrectomy, Nephrometry
1.
Nadu A, Kleinmann N, Laufer M, et al: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for central tumors: analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications. J Urol 2009;181:42-47.
2.
Gill IS, Desai MM, Kaouk JH, et al: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumor: duplicating open surgical techniques. J Urol 2002;167:469-475, discussion 475-476.
3.
Kutikov A, Uzzo RG: The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J Urol 2009;182:844-853.
4.
Reisiger K, Venkatesh R, Figenshau RS, et al: Complex laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal hilar tumors. Urology 2005;65:888-891.
5.
Gill IS, Colombo JR, Frank I, et al: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for hilar tumors. J Urol 2005;174:850-853.
6.
Tobert CM, Kahnoski RJ, Thompson DE, et al: RENAL nephrometry score predicts surgery type independent of individual surgeon's use of nephron-sparing surgery. Urology 2012;80:157-161.
7.
Stroup SP, Palazzi K, Kopp RP, et al: RENAL nephrometry score is associated with operative approach for partial nephrectomy and urine leak. Urology 2012;80:151-156.
8.
Ben X, Qian Z, Jie J: Hypertension secondary to reninoma treated with laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery in a child. Urology 2012;80:210-213.
9.
Koo HJ, Lee DH, Kim YI, et al: Renal hilar control during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: to clamp or not to clamp. J Endourol 2010;24:1283-1287.
10.
Porpiglia F, Volpe A, Billia M, et al: Laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy. Analysis of the current literature. Eur Urol 2008;53:732-743.
11.
Fan XX, Xu KW, Lin TX, et al: Comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 2013;111:611-621.
12.
Marszalek M, Chromecki T, Mohamad B, et al: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison of the transperitoneal versus the retroperitoneal approach. Urology 2011;77:109-113.
13.
Lattouf JB, Beri A, Ambros O, et al: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for hilar tumors: technique and results. Eur Urol 2008;54:409-418.
14.
Gupta GN, Boris R, Chung P, et al: Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for tumors greater than 4 cm and high nephrometry score: feasibility, renal functional, and oncological outcomes with minimum 1 year follow-up. Urol Oncol 2013;31:51-56.
15.
Lifshitz DA, Shikanov SA, Deklaj T, et al: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a single-center evolving experience. Urology 2010;75:282-287.
16.
Bhayani SB, Rha KH, Pinto PA, et al: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: effect of warm ischemia on serum creatinine. J Urol 2004;172:1265-1266.
17.
Porpiglia F, Renard J, Billia M, et al: Is renal warm ischemia over 30 minutes during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy possible? One-year results of a prospective study. Eur Urol 2007;52:1170-1178.
18.
Lane BR, Russo P, Uzzo RG, et al: Comparison of cold and warm ischemia during partial nephrectomy in 660 solitary kidneys reveals predominant role of nonmodifiable factors in determining ultimate renal function. J Urol 2011;185:421-427.
19.
Li QL, Guan HW, Zhang QP, et al: Optimal margin in nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma 4 cm or less. Eur Urol 2003;44:448-451.
20.
Pettus JA, Sharp DS, Yossepowitch O, et al: Tumor location does not affect long-term renal function after partial nephrectomy. Urology 2007;69:1059-1063.
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.