Influence of surgical approach on enhanced recovery after surgery in laparoscopic radical nephrectomy

IF 0.1 Q4 ONCOLOGY
D. Perlin, I. Dymkov, E. Davydova, A. Shmanev, A. Perlina
{"title":"Influence of surgical approach on enhanced recovery after surgery in laparoscopic radical nephrectomy","authors":"D. Perlin, I. Dymkov, E. Davydova, A. Shmanev, A. Perlina","doi":"10.17650/1726-9776-2020-16-1-35-42","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. Аdvantages of the retroperitoneal approach, successfully applied in some clinics, but only a few studies on direct comparison of laparoscopic and retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy.The study objective: to compare transperitoneal and retroperitoneal access during laparoscopic radical nephrectomy.Materials and methods. The study included 332 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma T1a–T3b. Transperitoneal access – 134, retroperitoneal – 198.Results. The mean time of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, as well as the time before clipping of the renal artery were significantly less in retroperitoneal access (161 ± 59 and 30 ± 24 min, respectively, compared with 178 ± 65 and 38 ± 39 min – with transperitoneal). The number of removed lymph nodes, and the number of patients detected with “positive” lymph nodes, and death from progression of disease was not significantly different between the groups transperitoneal and retroperitoneal access with an average follow-up period, 42.5 and 47.8 months respectively.Conclusion. Despite the lower popularity retroperitoneal access, the method has advantages in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), particular frequency of general perioperative complications, duration of epidural anesthesia, time of normalization of bowel function and length of hospital stay compared with transperitoneal access. The method is preferred for the old age and patients with comorbidity, especially of the cardiovascular system and respiratory organs.","PeriodicalId":42924,"journal":{"name":"Onkourologiya","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Onkourologiya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17650/1726-9776-2020-16-1-35-42","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. Аdvantages of the retroperitoneal approach, successfully applied in some clinics, but only a few studies on direct comparison of laparoscopic and retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy.The study objective: to compare transperitoneal and retroperitoneal access during laparoscopic radical nephrectomy.Materials and methods. The study included 332 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma T1a–T3b. Transperitoneal access – 134, retroperitoneal – 198.Results. The mean time of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, as well as the time before clipping of the renal artery were significantly less in retroperitoneal access (161 ± 59 and 30 ± 24 min, respectively, compared with 178 ± 65 and 38 ± 39 min – with transperitoneal). The number of removed lymph nodes, and the number of patients detected with “positive” lymph nodes, and death from progression of disease was not significantly different between the groups transperitoneal and retroperitoneal access with an average follow-up period, 42.5 and 47.8 months respectively.Conclusion. Despite the lower popularity retroperitoneal access, the method has advantages in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), particular frequency of general perioperative complications, duration of epidural anesthesia, time of normalization of bowel function and length of hospital stay compared with transperitoneal access. The method is preferred for the old age and patients with comorbidity, especially of the cardiovascular system and respiratory organs.
手术入路对腹腔镜根治性肾切除术术后增强恢复的影响
背景。经腹膜后入路的研究(Аdvantages),在一些临床成功应用,但直接比较腹腔镜与后腹膜镜根治性肾切除术的研究很少。研究目的:比较腹腔镜根治性肾切除术中经腹膜和后腹膜通路。材料和方法。该研究包括332例因肾细胞癌T1a-T3b接受腹腔镜根治性肾切除术的患者。经腹膜通路134分,后腹膜通路198分。腹腔镜下根治性肾切除术的平均时间和夹断肾动脉前的时间在腹膜后通路中明显缩短(分别为161±59和30±24分钟,而经腹膜通路为178±65和38±39分钟)。经腹膜和经腹膜后入路两组的淋巴结清扫数、淋巴结“阳性”患者数、疾病进展死亡数差异无统计学意义,平均随访时间分别为42.5个月和47.8个月。尽管腹膜后入路普及率较低,但与经腹膜入路相比,该方法在提高术后恢复(ERAS)、一般围手术期并发症的发生率、硬膜外麻醉持续时间、肠功能正常化时间和住院时间等方面具有优势。该方法适用于老年人和有合并症的患者,特别是心血管系统和呼吸器官的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Onkourologiya
Onkourologiya ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: The main objective of the journal "Cancer urology" is publishing up-to-date information about scientific clinical researches, diagnostics, treatment of oncologic urological diseases. The aim of the edition is to inform the experts on oncologic urology about achievements in this area, to build understanding of the necessary integrated interdisciplinary approach in therapy, alongside with urologists, combining efforts of doctors of various specialties (cardiologists, pediatricians, chemotherapeutists et al.), to contribute to raising the effectiveness of oncologic patients’ treatment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信