| LAPAROSCOPIC
SURGERY IN UROLOGICAL ONCOLOGY: BRIEF OVERVIEW
(
Download pdf )
JOSE R. COLOMBO
JR, GEORGES P. HABER, MAURICIO RUBINSTEIN, INDERBIR S. GILL
Section of
Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery, Glickman Urological Institute, The Cleveland
Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
ABSTRACT
The
authors report the experience of a high-volume center with laparoscopic
surgery in urological oncology, as well as a review of other relevant
series. Laparoscopic outcomes in the treatment of adrenal, kidney, upper
tract transitional cell carcinoma, bladder, prostate, and testicular malignancy
are described in this review. Specific considerations as complications
and port-site recurrence are also addressed. The authors concluded that
the intermediate-term oncological data is encouraging and comparable to
open surgery.
Key
words: urological neoplasms; treatment; laparoscopic surgery;
complications
Int Braz J Urol. 2006; 32: 504-12
INTRODUCTION
Initially
described for the treatment of kidney cancer (1), laparoscopic approach
has rapidly evolved in the urological oncologic field. This relatively
new surgical technique is part of the urologist’s armamentarium
in treating adrenal, upper tract transitional cell carcinoma, bladder,
prostate, and testicular malignancy. The laparoscopic technique duplicates
open surgery oncological principles, associating the benefits of minimally
invasive approach. Herein, the authors present their experience in laparoscopic
surgery for urological cancer at The Cleveland Clinic, and review other
relevant series.
KIDNEY CANCER
Laparoscopic
radical nephrectomy (LRN) is considered the standard treatment for most
patients with renal malignancies that are not eligible to nephron-sparing
surgery. Major advantages of LRN over open radical nephrectomy include
decreased perioperative morbidity, lower blood loss, shorter hospital
stay, and quicker convalescence (2,3). Reports available in literature
have showed comparable results between laparoscopic and open radical nephrectomy,
with projected 5-year cancer-specific survival of 87% to 98% in the laparoscopic
series, and overall survival of 81% to 94% (4-8) (Table-1). In 63 consecutive
patients undergoing LRN at our institution, estimated 7-year overall and
cancer-specific survival was 72% and 90%, similarly to a contemporary
series of open radical nephrectomy.(9) For T1 tumors (≤ 7 cm) the
estimated 7-year cancer-specific survival in the laparoscopic group was
97% vs. 96% in the open group (p = 0.84), and for T2 tumors (> 7 cm)
the estimated 7-year cancer-specific survival in the laparoscopic group
was 66% vs. 87% in the open group (p = 0.26). No contralateral recurrence
was found during the follow-up in this series, this is likely due to the
relative small number of patients, low positive margin rate, and small
incidence of multifocality. Renal function in this series, decreased significantly
after radical nephrectomy; however, this was not affected by the surgical
approach.
Retroperitoneal is our preferred access,
except in cases of larger tumors (> 10 cm) and previous retroperitoneal
surgery. Prospective randomized studies comparing the transperitoneal
and retroperitoneal approaches concluded that there is no statistical
difference between the techniques (10,11).
For appropriate histopathological analysis,
the specimen is always extracted intact in an adequate laparoscopic bag.
Financial analysis performed at our institution concluded that laparoscopic
radical nephrectomy is 12% less expensive than open radical nephrectomy
once the learning curve is reached (12).
In patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma,
the laparoscopic cytoreductive nephrectomy can be performed with low morbidity,
smaller blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. The minimally invasive
technique may shorten the interval between the nephrectomy and start of
systemic therapy (13).
Partial nephrectomy for renal cancer was
initially indicated for patients with compromised renal function, solitary
kidney, and bilateral tumor. Since, long-term oncological outcomes haven
been demonstrated as equivalent to radical nephrectomy while preserving
renal function (14), indications of partial nephrectomy has expanded to
patients with normal contralateral kidney. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy
(LPN) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to partial nephrectomy
in order to minimize the morbidity of the open procedure (15). LPN was
limited to patients with small, superficial, solitary, and peripheral
tumors. With increasing experience, LPN is now performed for larger, central
and hilar tumors. In our study with 100 patients, each with at least 3-years
follow-up, overall survival was 86% and cancer-specific survival was 100%
(16). Fifty of these patients, have reached 5-years follow-up, with overall
and cancer-specific survival of 84% and 100%, respectively (17) (Table-2).
Hilar clamping is used to provide a bloodless field during tumor excision
and pelvicaliceal repair. The impact of hilar clamping was evaluated and
no clinical sequelae were observed with warm ischemia smaller than 30
minutes (18). Similar perioperative complication rate was found after
LPN in patients with abnormal renal function (serum creatinine ≥
1.5 mg/dL comparing to patients with normal renal function (19). While
comparing the percentage decreasing in renal function, evaluated by serum
creatinine and glomerular filtration rate, there was no significant difference
between patients with abnormal and normal renal function. In this study,
solitary kidney was an independent risk factor for hemodialysis.
ADRENAL CANCER
Although
laparoscopic approach has become the gold standard for benign surgical
adrenal disorders such as Cushing’s disease, aldosteronoma, and
pheochromocytoma, only few reports addressing laparoscopic surgery for
adrenal malignancy are available. In our institution more than 330 laparoscopic
adrenalectomies were performed. Our experience with 31 patients with adrenal
malignancy showed an estimated 5-year survival of 40%. In this study,
local recurrence occurred in 7 patients (23%), and these patients had
significantly decreased 3-year survival compared to those without local
recurrence (16.7% vs. 66%, p = 0.016). The survival rate was not associated
with gender, age, tumor size, or laparoscopic approach employed. There
was no difference in survival for patients with solitary metastasis to
the gland compared to those with primary adrenal malignancy. In this series,
the 5-year survival was similar in patients with an adrenal tumor smaller
than 5 cm vs. 5 cm or greater (36% vs. 46%, p = 0.43) (20). These results
can be favorably compared to those in a prior open series with 37 patients
undergoing open adrenalectomy for non-primary adrenal malignancy, with
a 5-year actuarial survival of 24% (21). The suspicion of peri-adrenal
infiltration is a contraindication for laparoscopic adrenalectomy. Tumor
size per se is not a contraindication, although we generally limit laparoscopic
adrenalectomy to tumors in the 10 cm range. Intraoperative concern regarding
the adequacy of wide excision should lead to open conversion.
BLADDER CANCER
Radical
cystectomy is the gold-standard treatment for organ confined muscle invasive
or high-grade superficial recurrent bladder cancer (22). Laparoscopic
approach for radical cystectomy is relatively new, and studies available
in the literature show encouraging perioperative and short-term oncological
data. Urinary diversion can be performed either intracorporeally (“pure
laparoscopic”) or through a 5-7 cm mini-laparotomy incision (“laparoscopic
assisted”). A series with 37 patients undergoing laparoscopic radical
cystectomy in our institution with a mean follow-up of 31 months (1-66
months) showed an estimated 5-year overall and cancer-specific survival
of 58% and, 68%, respectively (23). Both overall and cancer-specific survivals
were superior in organ confined vs. non-organ confined disease and node-negative
vs. node-positive disease. Overall survival was superior when an extended
lymphadenectomy (median number of nodes = 21) is performed, compared to
patients undergoing limited template lymphadenectomy (median number of
nodes = 6). Cancer-specific survival trended towards to a slightly improvement;
however, this did not reach statistical significance, likely due to smaller
number of patients (Table-3). When comparing “pure laparoscopic”
technique to “laparoscopic-assisted” technique we found that
the morbidity of laparoscopic radical cystectomy is largely due to the
urinary diversion procedure. Our data support the extracorporeal performance
of the bowel work and ureteroileal anastomoses. Laparoscopic-assisted
radical cystectomy is technically more efficient, associated with a quicker
recovery profile, and decreased complication rate (24) (Table-4).
PROSTATE CANCER
Radical
prostatectomy has been shown to improve cancer-specific survival in the
context of a randomized trial (25). The laparoscopic approach offers the
advantage of magnification of the surgical field, allowing a clear operative
field with better view during the dissection of the neuro-vascular bundles
and urethro-vesical anastomosis. Transrectal real-time Doppler ultrasound
is routinely performed in our institution during the procedure to identify
the neuro-vascular bundle and the prostatic edges. This technique decreased
significantly the overall positive margin rate (29% vs. 9%, p < 0.001),
and predicted the presence of pT2 and pT3 disease
in 85% and 85% of cases, respectively (26). In a series of 1000 laparoscopic
radical prostatectomies published by Guillonneau et al. (27), the positive
margin rate was 6.9%, 18.6%, 30% and 34% for pT2a, pT2b, pT3a, and pT3b,
respectively. Overall 3-year biochemical progression-free survival was
90.5%, ranging from 44% to 91% according to the pathological stage. Rassweiler
et al. (28) published their early 180-case experience with 16% of positive
margins, and 95%biochemical progression-free survival. Early oncological
results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy are comparable to the open
approach, but studies with long-term follow-up are still lacking.
Salomon et al. (29) reported a potency and
continence rate of 59% and 90%, while. Guillonneau et al. (30) reported
a potency and continence rate of 85%, and 82% after a period of 12 months
(Table-5).
UROTHELIAL
CANCER
Laparoscopic
nephroureterectomy with en bloc bladder cuff for upper tract urothelial
carcinoma appears to have similar oncological outcomes comparing to open
nephroureterectomy, regarding positive margin rate, and bladder, local
and distant recurrences (31). Operative time and perioperative complication
rate are equivalent, with less blood loss, less analgesic use, and shorter
hospitalization, avoiding the usual two incisions of the open nephroureterectomy
(31,32). At least five methods for controlling the distal ureter and bladder
cuff were described, including endoscopic, laparoscopic and open. The
most commonly used is the open technique, through a low Gibson incision.
This method avoids patient repositioning, minimizing tumor spillage with
ureteral clipping early in the procedure, right after renal hilum control.
To decrease the presence of ureteric stump, it is recommended to dissect
laterally to the bladder until visualization of the ureteral hiatus, performing
the resection of bladder cuff under direct vision (32).
Matin & Gill (33) reported a different
recurrence and survival rates related to the surgical technique employed
to control the distal ureter and bladder cuff. The cystoscopic detachment
and ligation of the bladder cuff was significantly associated to a better
survival when compared to the laparoscopic extravesical stapling with
cystoscopic deroofing and fulguration of the intramural ureter.
In a multicenter study with 116 patients
undergoing laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper tract transitional
cell carcinoma, the mid-term results were comparable to the open series
(34). The 2-year overall survival according to the pathologic grade was
88%, 90%, 80% and 90% for grade I, II, III, IV, respectively. The 2-year
cancer-specific survival was 89% for pT1, 86% for pT2, 77% for pT3, and
0% for pT4. Although long-tem follow-up data is not available yet, the
mid-term data support the use of minimally invasive technique to treat
upper tract transitional cell carcinoma.
TESTICULAR
CANCER
When
indicated, standardized retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND)
can be performed for Stage I and low-volume Stage II disease using laparoscopic
access, even after chemotherapy. Both staging and therapeutic techniques
are currently performed with minimal morbidity (35,36). The long-term
results reported by Steiner et al. (36) are similar to the open series.
In this study, the antegrade ejaculation was preserved in 98% of patients,
with significantly lower morbidity.
RPLND after chemotherapy represents a technical
challenge. The complication rate for this procedure is still high, and
it should be performed by only very experienced laparoscopic surgeons
(37). Janetschek et al. described their experience with 35 patients undergoing
postchemotherapy laparoscopic RPLND, with chylous ascites occurring in
6 cases. In their institution, a preoperative low-fat diet is now used
1 week before and 2 weeks after the surgery (38).
CONSIDERATIONS
Perioperative
Complications
Analyzing 1867 laparoscopic procedures for
urological malignancy at our institution, the perioperative complication
rate was 12.3% (95% CI 10.9 to 13.8) (39). Intraoperative complications
occurred in 4.9% (95% CI 4.0 to 6.0), including hemorrhage (3.6%), and
visceral injury (1.2%). Because of these complications, 18 (0.9%) cases
were converted to open procedure. Postoperative complications have been
noted in 162 (8.6%) cases, and the most common were hemorrhage in 52 (2.7%),
acute renal failure in 16 (0.8%), and pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, pulmonary
edema, atrial fibrillation in 7 (0.3%) cases each. Perioperative mortality
occurred in 8 cases (0.4%). Radical cystectomy (adj. OR 4.9, 95% CI 1.3
to 8.0; p < 0.001), length of surgery greater than four hours (adj.
OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.7 to 3.8; p < 0.001), partial nephrectomy (adj. OR
2.4, 95% CI 1.5 to 3.8; p < 0.001), and serum creatinine ≥ 1.5
mg/dL (adj. OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.0 to 4.3; p = 0.04) were found as independent
predictors for perioperative complication. The length of hospitalization
increased directly proportional to the number of complications (p <
0.001).
Literature supports the importance of experience
of the surgeon and hospital-volume in the treatment of cancer. Begg et
al. (40) found that perioperative mortality in complex open oncologic
procedures is lower when performed by surgical team with higher volume.
In study addressing exclusively open radical prostatectomy (41), the same
author concluded that postoperative complication rate is significantly
reduced when the operation is performed in a high-volume hospital and
by an experienced surgeon. In our study, surgeon’s experience was
not an independent predictor for perioperative complication (p = 0.07),
although we identified a trend pointing to it. After 50 cases of laparoscopic
surgeries for urological malignancy the adjusted odds ratio was 0.97.
When increasing this experience to 100 cases and 500 cases, the odds ratio
were 0.96 and 0.80, respectively. We believe that multicentric studies
with a larger number of procedures would show the same result for laparoscopic
procedures as well.
Port-Site
Recurrence
Port site metastasis, intraperitoneal dissemination,
and local recurrence represent a major concern when laparoscopic approach
is employed. Port-site recurrence is influenced by local and systemic
immunological status, tumor behavior and technical factors (42). Activation
of cytokines (IL-1 and IL-6), C-reactive protein, and polymorphonuclear
leukocytes occur in a smaller level after a laparoscopic procedure compared
to similar open procedure (42,43). Some studies showed a better preservation
of cell-mediated immunity after laparoscopic surgery (44,45). However,
these benefits are not applied to the peritoneal level, possibly related
to the hypoxic environment due to pneumoperitoneum pressure and secondary
effect of the carbon dioxide in the peritoneal macrophage response (35-37).
In a series with over 1000 laparoscopic
cases, Rassweiler et al. (42) found eight cases of local recurrence and
2 port sites metastasis. In the multicentric study by Micali et al. (46)
with 10912 laparoscopic surgeries for cancer, 10 cases of port seeding,
and 3 cases of peritoneal tumor spreading were found. Aggressiveness of
tumor, deficient immunological state of the oncological patient, and poor
oncological principles related to specimen extraction are responsible
for these rare events (42,46).
In attempting to minimize the risks for
port-site and local recurrence, tumor violation and spillage should be
avoided by using the appropriated surgical technique, including the use
of impermeable bags during specimen extraction, and removal of tumor-contaminated
instruments from the operative field after the target-organ entrapment.
CONCLUSION
Although
long-term oncological outcomes are not available for the majority of genitourinary
malignancies treated by the laparoscopic approach, the intermediate-term
data are encouraging and comparable to open surgery. Multicentric studies
with longer follow-up are necessary to validate this relatively new surgical
approach.
CONFLICT
OF INTEREST
None declared.
REFERENCES
- Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR, Soper NJ, Dierks SM, Meretyk S, Darcy MD,
et al.: Laparoscopic nephrectomy: initial case report. J Urol. 1991;
146: 278-82.
- Saranchuk JW, Savage SJ: Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: current
status. BJU Int. 2005; 95(Suppl 2): 21-6.
- Dunn MD, Portis AJ, Shalhav AL, Elbahnasy AM, Heidorn C, McDougall
EM, et al.: Laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy: a 9-year experience.
J Urol. 2000; 164: 1153-9.
- Chan DY, Cadeddu JA, Jarrett TW, Marshall FF, Kavoussi LR: Laparoscopic
radical nephrectomy: cancer control for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol.
2001; 166: 2095-9; discussion 2099-100.
- Ono Y, Kinukawa T, Hattori R, Gotoh M, Kamihira O, Ohshima S: The
long-term outcome of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for small renal
cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2001; 165: 1867-70.
- Portis AJ, Yan Y, Landman J, Chen C, Barrett PH, Fentie DD, et al.:
Long-term followup after laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. J Urol. 2002;
167: 1257-62.
- Saika T, Ono Y, Hattori R, Gotoh M, Kamihira O, Yoshikawa Y, et al.:
Long-term outcome of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for pathologic
T1 renal cell carcinoma. Urology. 2003; 62: 1018-23.
- Permpongkosol S, Chan DY, Link RE, Sroka M, Allaf M, Varkarakis I,
et al.: Long-term survival analysis after laparoscopic radical nephrectomy.
J Urol. 2005; 174: 1222-5.
- Colombo JR Jr, Haber GP, Lane B, Jelovsek JE, Novick AC, Gill IS:
Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: oncological and functional outcomes.
(Submitted)
- Nambirajan T, Jeschke S, Al-Zahrani H, Vrabec G, Leeb K, Janetschek
G: Prospective, randomized controlled study: transperitoneal laparoscopic
versus retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy. Urology. 2004; 64:
919-24.
- Desai MM, Strzempkowski B, Matin SF, Steinberg AP, Ng C, Meraney
AM, et al.: Prospective randomized comparison of transperitoneal versus
retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. J Urol. 2005; 173:
38-41.
- Meraney AM, Gill IS: Financial analysis of open versus laparoscopic
radical nephrectomy and nephroureterectomy. J Urol. 2002; 167: 1757-62.
- Rabets JC, Kaouk J, Fergany A, Finelli A, Gill IS, Novick AC: Laparoscopic
versus open cytoreductive nephrectomy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Urology. 2004; 64: 930-4.
- Fergany AF, Hafez KS, Novick AC: Long-term results of nephron sparing
surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: 10-year followup. J Urol.
2000; 163: 442-5.
- Gill IS, Matin SF, Desai MM, Kaouk JH, Steinberg A, Mascha E, et
al.: Comparative analysis of laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy
for renal tumors in 200 patients. J Urol. 2003; 170: 64-8.
- Moinzadeh A, Gill IS, Finelli A, Kaouk J, Desai M: Laparoscopic partial
nephrectomy: 3-year followup. J Urol. 2006; 175: 459-62.
- Lane BR, Gill IS: Five year outcomes of laparoscopic partial nphrectomy.
J Urol. (Submitted)
- Desai MM, Gill IS, Ramani AP, Spaliviero M, Rybicki L, Kaouk JH:
The impact of warm ischaemia on renal function after laparoscopic partial
nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2005; 95: 377-83.
- Colombo JR Jr, Haber GP, Gill IS: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy
in patients with compromised renal function. (Submitted)
- Moinzadeh A, Gill IS: Laparoscopic radical adrenalectomy for malignancy
in 31 patients. J Urol. 2005; 173: 519-25.
- Kim SH, Brennan MF, Russo P, Burt ME, Coit DG: The role of surgery
in the treatment of clinically isolated adrenal metastasis. Cancer.
1998; 82: 389-94.
- Dalbagni G, Genega E, Hashibe M, Zhang ZF, Russo P, Herr H, et al.:
Cystectomy for bladder cancer: a contemporary series. J Urol. 2001;
165: 1111-6.
- Haber GP, Gill IS: Laparoscopic radical cystectomy for cancer: 5-year
oncologic outcomes. (Submitted)
- Haber GP, Colombo JR Jr, Campbell S, Fergany A, Aron M, Gill IS:
Laparoscopic radical cystectomy: pure laparoscopy versus laparoscopic
assisted. (Submitted)
- Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, Haggman M, Andersson SO, Bratell
S, et al.: Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate
cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005; 352: 1977-84.
- Ukimura O, Magi-Galluzzi C, Gill IS: Real-time transrectal ultrasound
guidance during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: impact on surgical
margins. J Urol. 2006; 175: 1304-10.
- Guillonneau B, el-Fettouh H, Baumert H, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD,
Fromont G, et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation
after 1,000 cases a Montsouris Institute. J Urol. 2003; 169: 1261-6.
- Rassweiler J, Schulze M, Teber D, Marrero R, Seemann O, Rumpelt J,
et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique:
oncological results in the first 500 patients. J Urol. 2005; 173: 761-4.
- Salomon L, Levrel O, de la Taille A, Anastasiadis AG, Saint F, Zaki
S, et al.: Radical prostatectomy by the retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic
approach: 12 years of experience in one center. Eur Urol. 2002; 42:
104-10; discussion 110-1.
- Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD, Baumert H, Vallancien G:
Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 550 procedures.
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2002; 43: 123-33.
- Rassweiler JJ, Schulze M, Marrero R, Frede T, Palou Redorta J, Bassi
P: Laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract transitional
cell carcinoma: is it better than open surgery? Eur Urol. 2004; 46:
690-7.
- Matin SF: Radical laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper urinary
tract transitional cell carcinoma: current status. BJU Int. 2005; 95(Suppl
2): 68-74.
- Matin SF, Gill IS: Recurrence and survival following laparoscopic
radical nephroureterectomy with various forms of bladder cuff control.
J Urol. 2005; 173: 395-400.
- El Fettouh HA, Rassweiler JJ, Schulze M, Salomon L, Allan J, Ramakumar
S, et al.: Laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy: results of an international
multicenter study. Eur Urol. 2002; 42: 447-52.
- Bhayani SB, Ong A, Oh WK, Kantoff PW, Kavoussi LR: Laparoscopic retroperitoneal
lymph node dissection for clinical stage I nonseminomatous germ cell
testicular cancer: a long-term update. Urology. 2003; 62: 324-7.
- Steiner H, Peschel R, Janetschek G, Holtl L, Berger AP, Bartsch G,
et al.: Long-term results of laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node
dissection: a single-center 10-year experience. Urology. 2004; 63: 550-5.
- Palese MA, Su LM, Kavoussi LR: Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph
node dissection after chemotherapy. Urology. 2002; 60: 130-4.
- Janetschek G: Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection.
Urol Clin North Am. 2001; 28: 107-14.
- Colombo JR Jr, Haber GP, Jelovsek JE, Gill IS: Complications in laparoscopic
surgery for urological cancer. (Submitted)
- Begg CB, Cramer LD, Hoskins WJ, Brennan MF: Impact of hospital volume
on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. JAMA. 1998; 280: 1747-51.
- Begg CB, Riedel ER, Bach PB, Kattan MW, Schrag D, Warren JL, et al.:
Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med. 2002;
346: 1138-44.
- Rassweiler J, Tsivian A, Kumar AV, Lymberakis C, Schulze M, Seeman
O, et al.: Oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for urological
malignancy: experience with more than 1,000 operations. J Urol. 2003;
169: 2072-5.
- Ohzato H, Yoshizaki K, Nishimoto N, Ogata A, Tagoh H, Monden M, et
al.: Interleukin-6 as a new indicator of inflammatory status: detection
of serum levels of interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein after surgery.
Surgery. 1992; 111: 201-9.
- Novitsky YW, Litwin DE, Callery MP: The net immunologic advantage
of laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2004; 18: 1411-9.
- Ost MC, Tan BJ, Lee BR: Urological laparoscopy: basic physiological
considerations and immunological consequences. J Urol. 2005; 174: 1183-8.
- Micali S, Celia A, Bove P, De Stefani S, Sighinolfi MC, Kavoussi
LR, et al.: Tumor seeding in urological laparoscopy: an international
survey. J Urol. 2004; 171: 2151-4.
_________
Accepted:
April 15, 2006
_______________________
Correspondence address:
Dr. Inderbir S. Gill
Section of Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery
The Cleveland Clinic Foundation
9500 Euclid Av, A100
Cleveland, OH 44195, USA
Fax: 216 - 445-7031
E-mail: gilli@ccf.org
|