| RETROPERITONEOSCOPIC
RENAL BIOPSY IN CHILDREN
(
Download pdf )
CARLOS M. JESUS,
HAMILTO YAMAMOTO, PAULO R. KAWANO, RODRIGO OTSUKA, OSCAR E. FUGITA
Department
of Urology, School of Medicine, General Hospital, UNESP, Botucatu, Sao
Paulo, Brazil
ABSTRACT
Objective:
We present our experience in a series of 17 consecutive pediatric patients
submitted to retroperitoneal laparoscopic renal biopsy.
Materials and Methods: Retroperitoneal laparoscopic
renal biopsy (LRB) was performed in 5 boys and 12 girls. Mean age was
8.1 years and age range from 2 to 12. Two or three trocars were used to
expose the inferior pole of the kidney, remove enough cortical parenchymal
specimen and fulgurate the biopsy site. Assessment included surgical time,
estimated blood loss, hospitalization period, analgesia requirements,
complications and number of glomeruli present in the specimen.
Results: LRB was successfully performed
in all 15 patients (88%). In two cases, LRB was not possible to be performed.
One patient was converted to a transperitoneal laparoscopy due to tear
in the peritoneum. The other patient had had previous abdominal surgery
and, during retroperitoneal balloon dilation, the peritoneum was opened
and the open biopsy was performed. A third patient had postoperatively
a perirenal hematoma, which was solved spontaneously. Complication rate
was 17.6% (3/17 cases). Mean operative time was 65 minutes, while mean
estimated blood loss was 52 mL, mean hospital stay was 2.2 days and mean
analgesic requirement was 100 mg of tramadol. The mean number of glomeruli
present in the specimen was 60.
Conclusion: Retroperitoneal laparoscopic
renal biopsy in children is a simple, safe. Bleeding is still the most
common complication. However, direct vision usually allows a safe control
of this drawback. In our institution, laparoscopic approach is the chosen
procedure in pediatric patients older than one - year - old.
Key
words: renal biopsy; children; laparoscopy; complications
Int Braz J Urol. 2007; 33: 536-43
INTRODUCTION
Renal
biopsy is an important procedure for renal disease investigation. Percutaneous
needle renal biopsy (PNRB) is the most common technique to obtain renal
tissue. However, there are absolute and relative contraindications such
as solitary kidney, uncontrolled arterial hypertension, hemostasis disorders,
renal artery aneurysm, Jehovah witness, percutaneous needle renal biopsy
failure, morbid obesity and non-collaborative patients (1-4). In these
situations, open renal biopsy (ORB) is the option through flank or posterior
incision (5,6).
As an alternative to ORB in selected cases,
some authors propose transperitoneal (7) or retroperitoneal laparoscopic
approach (8-12). Laparoscopy allows potential advantages such as less
postoperative pain, better cosmetic results, short hospitalization and
convalescence (13,14).
Open renal biopsy was performed to obtain
renal tissue samples in children before the laparoscopic approach. We
believe this procedure is safer than PNRB. In 2002, with the advent of
laparoscopy and considering its potential benefits, we standardized the
renal tissue sample through retroperitoneal route in children.
MATERIALS
AND METHODS
Twenty
renal biopsies were performed from April 2002 to February 2006 in children
younger than 12-year old to different renal conditions. Seventeen children
were submitted to retroperitoneal laparoscopic renal biopsy (LRB) and
three were submitted to ORB. Large ascites in one patient, severe trombocitopenia
in the second (fewer than 30,000 platelets) and low age (two-months-old)
in the third child determined the choice for ORB.
The children’s parents were informed
about the procedure and the probability of choosing open surgery conversion.
The study was evaluated and accepted by the ethics committee of the institution.
The procedure was performed under general
anesthesia placing the Foley catheter in bladder and nasogastric tube.
The patient was put in flank position in the renal side to be operated.
The kidney bridge was elevated underneath the last ribs to increase the
space between the costal margins and the iliac crest in order to create
a larger retroperitoneal working area. Before the surgery, prophylactic
antibiotics (cefalotin 50 mg/kg/24h) were administered.
A 1.0 to 1.5 cm incision was made in the
tip of the 12th rib in the retroperitoneum. Through this incision, the
retroperitoneal area was dissected and the peritoneum pushed forward.
An additional retroperitoneal space was completed using balloon dissection
whose function was to increase the working space and promote the hemostasis
after the digital dissection.
Afterwards, a 10 mm trocar was placed and
retroperitoneal area was created with CO2 and a 10 to 12 mm
Hg. Then, lower kidney pole was observed. A 5 mm trocar was placed in
posterior lower axillary line, under laparoscopic view. Through the 5
mm trocar, scissors or biopsy grasper were used to perform 0.5 cm ellipsoid
incision in lower renal pole or with a biopsy grasper. If necessary, a
third 5 mm trocar was placed, behind the first one to facilitate renal
surface exposition (Figure-1).
The biopsy bed was fulgurated with argon
beam coagulator or pressed with gauze for 5 minutes. As a next step, oxidized
cellulose could be used in biopsy bed. If there was no bleeding, retroperitoneum
pressure was reduced to 5 mmHg and now, a new hemostasia revision was
done. No drain was left. The nasogastric tube and Foley catheter were
withdrawn after surgery. Analgesia was endovenous with tramadol (0.25
mg/kg/bolus) for every patient requirement by endovenous infusion pump
plus dipirona (50 mg/kg/dose every 8 hours). The post-operative follow-up
evaluated operation time, blood loss, intra and post-operative complications,
hospital stay, cumulative analgesia measure, histopathological diagnosis
and glomeruli number.
RESULTS
LRB
was performed in 5 boys and 12 girls. Patient data are listed in Table-1.
Age ranges from 2 to 12 years old (mean 8.1 years) and mean operative
time was 65 minutes (40 - 180 minutes). Hospital stay was 2.2 days. Three
patients had complications. The first one, a 2-year old boy had peritoneum
rupture during digital maneuver to create retroperitoneal area, which
did not allow the completion of the retroperitoneal procedure. This surgery
was performed by transperitoneal laparoscopic approach, using an additional
trocar in left side in abdomen. The second patient had a huge peritoneum
rupture, in the beginning of the surgery, thus not allowing laparoscopic
procedure. This patient had been submitted to a previous open surgery
(left hemicolectomy) due to inflammatory bowel disease. In both cases
the hole in peritoneum is not repaired with sutures. The third patient
had morbid obesity, which made it difficult to find the kidney in surgery.
He lost blood in the first postoperative day and a 300 mL - perirenal
hematoma was observed by ultrasound, and it was solved spontaneously.
Mean analgesic doses were 100 mg of tramadol. All the samples presented
renal cortex. Glomeruli mean per fragment was 60 (average 37 and 128).
COMMENTS
Renal
biopsy is an important key in the diagnosis and treatment of some renal
diseases. In some cases, flank incisions could lead to morbidity. Renal
biopsy was reinforced after the report by Iversen & Braun showing
PNRB as a safe, easy and less morbid method (15).
Although PNRB is the standard procedure
to obtain renal tissue samples nowadays, it is not indicated in different
situations such as non-collaborative patients, failure to obtain samples
for pathology tests, solitary kidney, morbid obesity and hematological
disorders (1-4). In these cases, some authors suggest laparoscopic approach
as an alternative to ORB (7-12,16).
PNRB could be done in children, but there
are some drawbacks. They need some kind of sedation or general anesthesia
for renal biopsy to be done under computerized tomography or ultrasound.
In addition, PNRB presents some risks, which could lead to renal bleeding,
arterio-venous fistulas and renal aneurysms (4,17,18). In laparoscopic
approach, blood loss is minimized because biopsy bed is controlled quickly
under direct view, which is not possible in PNRB. Another advantage of
LRB is the high positivity about the renal samples (almost 100%) different
from the needle method, which is around 90% of renal fragments (12,16-18).
We believe LRB eliminates the necessity of another procedure.
In our study, two complications could be
avoided. In order to avoid peritoneum tears during digital maneuver to
create retroperitoneal space, this procedure must be carried out carefully
because children have a thin peritoneum. However, not all peritoneal incidental
lesions need to convert to open or laparoscopic transperitoneal approach
because there could be CO2 equivalence pressure between the
intraperitoneal cavity and the retroperitoneum. Only in cases where there
are big holes in the peritoneum, this maneuver could not be done, allowing
the lowering of the peritoneal envelope on the retroperitoneal area, preventing
the normal development of the procedure.
Caione et al. analyzed LRB in 22 children
with the same parameters used by us (12). Data such as sample success
and age were similar to our series. On the other hand, their operative
time and hospital stay were shorter than ours according to Table-2.
As to the trocar numbers, we believe two
are enough in most cases. In the beginning of our experience, we used
three trocars. Usually, we only use the third trocar in hard cases, e.g.
morbid obesity.
Obesity could complicate retroperitoneal
access (16,19,20). It occurred in an obese patient, leaving a perirenal
hematoma. It is not clear if the bleeding site was the biopsy bed or the
perinephretic fat. It is hard to reach the renal lower pole in these cases.
Caione et al. performed the only open surgery conversion in an obese child,
due to the difficulty of finding the operation landmarks (12). Yap et
al. suggested the intra-operative ultrasound use in morbid obese to make
kidney location easier for biopsy taking (20). Shetye et al. reported
unexpected spleen biopsy in two cases in LRB in obese patients, showing
that, in these cases, it was harder to set anatomic landmarks, due to
excessive retroperitoneal fat. In a similar
way, these complications were minimized with intraoperative ultrasound.
Complication rate in this series of 74 patients (aged 3 to 74 years old)
was 20%. The most frequent type of complication was hemorrhage, comprising
20% of all (16).
In our study, little analgesic was used and two children did not use it
post - operatively. Cumulative analgesic average dose during hospital
stay was 100 mg of tramadol and 500g of dipirone, which we believe to
be very low. LRB complication rate ranges from 0.7 to 11% in adults (4,17,18).
LRB can be an alternative procedure, as it is minimally invasive, with
low complication rate and high successful sampling rate (Table-2).
As far as we know, this is the only series
that uses LRB solely in children under 12 - years - old, because we believe
that only this age range can benefit from this procedure. Caione et al.
performed the laparoscopic approach just where PNRB could not be applied,
because of uncontrolled hypertension, hematological disorders, anti-platelet
medications and anatomic abnormalities (12). In teenagers, PNRB is regarded
as a better, less invasive method, which does not require either sedation
or general anesthesia, since most patients are collaborative.
CONCLUSION
LRB
in children is a safe and effective procedure. At present this approach
is used in our institution in children older than one year-old and younger
than 12 years-old, as well as in patients with contraindication to PNRB.
CONFLICT OF
INTEREST
None
declared.
REFERENCES
- Bolton WK, Vaughan ED Jr: A comparative study of open surgical and
percutaneous renal biopsies. J Urol. 1977; 117: 696-8.
- Patil J, Bailey GL, Mahoney EF: Open-renal biopsy in uremic patient.
Urology. 1974; 3: 293-6.
- Schow DA, Vinson RK, Morrisseau PM: Percutaneous renal biopsy of
the solitary kidney: a contraindication? J Urol. 1992; 147: 1235-7.
- Kark RM, Muehrcke RC, Pollack VE, Pirani CL, Kiefer JH: An analysis
of five hundred percutaneous renal biopsies. AMA Arch Intern Med. 1958;
101: 439-51.
- Almkuist RD, Buckalew VM Jr: Techniques of renal biopsy. Urol Clin
North Am. 1979; 6: 503-17.
- Hinman F Jr: Open renal biopsy. In: Atlas of Urologic Surgery. Philadelphia,
WB Saunders. 1988; pp. 839-90.
- Healey DE, Newman RC, Cohen MS, Mars DR: Laparoscopically assisted
percutaneous renal biopsy. J Urol. 1993; 150: 1218-21.
- Gaur DD: Laparoscopic operative retroperitoneoscopy: use of a new
device. J Urol. 1992; 148: 1137-9.
- Gaur DD, Agarwal DK, Khochikar MV, Purohit KC: Laparoscopic renal
biopsy via retroperitoneal approach. J Urol. 1994; 151: 925-6.
- Gimenez LF, Micali S, Chen RN, Moore RG, Kavoussi LR, Scheel PJ Jr:
Laparoscopic renal biopsy. Kidney Int. 1998; 54: 525-9.
- Rassweiler JJ, Seemann O, Frede T, Henkel TO, Alken P: Retroperitoneoscopy:
experience with 200 cases. J Urol. 1998; 160: 1265-9.
- Caione P, Micali S, Rinaldi S, Capozza N, Lais A, Matarazzo E, et
al.: Retroperitoneal laparoscopy for renal biopsy in children. J Urol.
2000; 164: 1080-3.
- Abbou CC, Cicco A, Gasman D, Hoznek A, Antiphon P, Chopin DK, et
al.: Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy. J
Urol. 1999; 161: 1776-80.
- Doublet JD, Barreto HS, Degremont AC, Gattegno B, Thibault P: Retroperitoneal
nephrectomy: comparison of laparoscopy with open surgery. World J Surg.
1996; 20: 713-6.
- Iversen P, Brun C: Aspiration biopsy of the kidney. Am J Med. 1951;
11: 324-30.
- Shetye KR, Kavoussi LR, Ramakumar S, Fugita OE, Jarrett TW: Laparoscopic
renal biopsy: a 9-year experience. BJU Int. 2003; 91: 817-20.
- Muth RG: The safety of percutaneous renal biopsy: an analysis of
500 consecutive cases. J Urol. 1965; 94: 1-3.
- Diaz-Buxo JA, Donadio JV Jr: Complications of percutaneous renal
biopsy: an analysis of 1,000 consecutive biopsies. Clin Nephrol. 1975;
4: 223-7.
- Chen RN, Moore RG, Micali S, Kavoussi LR: Retroperitoneoscopic renal
biopsy in extremely obese patients. Urology. 1997; 50: 195-8.
- Yap RL, Chan DY, Fradin J, Jarrett TW: Intraoperative ultrasound guided
retroperitoneal laparoscopic renal biopsy in the morbidly obese patient.
J Urol. 2000; 163: 1197-8.
____________________
Accepted after revision:
February 28, 2007
_______________________
Correspondence address:
Dr. Carlos Márcio Nóbrega de Jesus
Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu, UNESP
Botucatu, SP, 18618-000, Brazil
Fax: + 55 14 3811-6271
E-mail: marcio@fmb.unesp.br
EDITORIAL COMMENT
Retroperitoneal
endoscopic approach has gained popularity both worldwide and in our country
including indications in pediatric cases (1-3).
Regarding
the access, in general most comparative studies show no advantage for
retroperitoneal to transperitoneal approach to kidney indications. In
my opinion for kidney biopsy, retroperitoneoscopy offer advantage due
to be a faster and direct procedure without violation of peritoneal cavity.
We
reported the first series of this procedure in Brazil 5 years ago as an
option for cases with high risk for bleeding, previous insufficient sample
or when the technical conditions for ultrasound guided biopsy were not
available(4,5).
At
learning curve, our team had one conversion because the kidney was small
and difficult to locate. Peritoneal tears are relatively frequent and
innocuous, but in our experience, there are no conversions due to this
“complication”. Some maneuvers as place an anterior trocar
to displace peritoneum medially, puncture with intracath in the peritoneum
or to do a big opening in anterior peritoneum can solve the peritoneal
compression to the working space.
Another
important issue is to check the hemostasis before removing the trocars.
Pressure of CO2 need to be reduced to 5 mmHg and an inspection
was done accurately. Additional cautery or a resin as surgicel or gelfoam
can achieve a good hemostasis when necessary.
I
agree with the authors that show that the samples are excellent for pathological
analysis. This fact and an iterative anesthesia in children to do this
procedure are the most important arguments to prefer the retroperitoneoscopic
to needle biopsy in this age.
This
report clearly confirms the growing indication of retroperitoneoscopic
surgery in the modern urological armamentarium.
REFERENCES
- Tobias-Machado M, Tulio Lasmar M, Rincon Rios F, Forseto PH, Vaz Juliano
R, Roger Wroclawski ER: 6-year experience with extra peritoneal lumbar
laparoscopic surgery: indications, complications, and results in a reference
Southamerican center. Arch Esp Urol. 2005; 58: 657-64.
- Tobias-Machado M, Juliano RV, Gaspar HA, Rocha RP, Borrelli M, Wroclawski
ER: Videoendoscopic surgery by extraperitoneal access: technical aspects
and indication. Int Braz J Urol. 2003; 29: 441-9.
- Tobias-Machado M, Cartum J, Santos-Machado TM, Gaspar HA, Simoes
AS, Cruz R, et al.: Retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy in an infant
with adrenocortical virilizing tumor. Sao Paulo Med J. 2002; 120: 87-9.
- Tobias-Machado M, Pinto MA, Juliano RV, Cintra CC, Wroclawski ER:
Retroperitoneoscopic renal biopsy. Int Braz J Urol. 2002; 28: 192-6.
- Tobias-Machado M, Pinto MA, Juliano RV, Neto ACC, Wroclawski ER,
Borelli M: Laparoscopic biopsy of the kidney: an option of access. J
Endourol. 2000; 14 (suppl): 54.
Dr. Marcos Tobias-Machado
Section of Urologic Oncology and Laparoscopy
Department of Urology, ABC Medical School
Santo Andre, Sao Paulo, Brazil
E-mail: tobias-machado@uol.com.br
EDITORIAL COMMENT
The
authors are to be commended for their interesting and original series of
17 patients aged from 2 to 12 years-old undergoing retroperitoneoscopic
renal biopsy (LRB) as an alternative to open renal biopsy (ORB). Three patients
were contraindicated to the retroperitoneoscopic approach due to ascites,
severe thrombocitopenia, and low age (two-month old).
There
are some points however that should be discussed with the reader. Although
the authors state that there are some drawbacks of percutaneous renal biopsy
(PNRB) in children, and that LRB is the preferred method in their institution
for renal sampling in children between 1 and 12 years, PNRB under ultrasound
guidance continues to be the standard approach to allow histological diagnosis
in children with evidence of renal disease.
While
LRB requires general anesthesia, in a recent study Sinha et al. suggests
that children older than five years of age may be selected on an individual
basis for the biopsy to be performed under sedation as a day care procedure
(1).
Although
both ORB and LRB have the potential to minimize blood loss by quickly controlling
the biopsy bed under direct vision, PNRB has achieved acceptable complication
and bleeding rates of less than 5% (1,2), similar to the rates reported
in LRB series (3,4).
Failure
to obtain adequate tissue for diagnosis may occur with both PNRB and LRB.
A recent study has proposed that a success rate over 95% in obtaining adequate
tissue for diagnosis is an acceptable standard for PNRB (2). The success
rate in two series of LRB by Shetye et al. (3) and Caione et al. (4) were
respectively 96% and 95%. Even though LRB allows for biopsy of the kidney
under direct vision, failure to obtain adequate tissue for diagnosis may
occur mainly in obese patients due to excessive retroperitoneal fat and
bleeding, with poor visualization of the laparoscopic field (3,4). These
patients may require open conversion or additional procedures.
It
should be emphasized that PNRB is the preferred method for obtaining renal
biopsy in children as long as there are no contraindications. LRB should
be indicated as an alternative to ORB when there are contraindications to
PNRB.
REFERENCES
- Sinha MD, Lewis MA, Bradbury MG, Webb NJ: Percutaneous real-time ultrasound-guided
renal biopsy by automated biopsy gun in children: safety and complications.
J Nephrol. 2006; 19: 41-4.
- Hussain F, Watson AR, Hayes J, Evans J: Standards for renal biopsies:
comparison of inpatient and day care procedures. Pediatr Nephrol. 2003;
18: 53-6.
- Shetye KR, Kavoussi LR, Ramakumar S, Fugita OE, Jarrett TW: Laparoscopic
renal biopsy: a 9-year experience. BJU Int. 2003; 91: 817-20.
- Caione P, Micali S, Rinaldi S, Capozza N, Lais A, Matarazzo E, et
al: Retroperitoneal laparoscopy for renal biopsy in children. J Urol.
2000; 164: 1080-3.
Dr. Frederico R. Romero &
Dr. Thadeu Brenny Filho
Department of Urology
Hospital São Vicente
Curitiba, PR, Brazil
E-mail: frederico.romero@gmail.com
|