| RETROPERITONEOSCOPIC
NEPHRECTOMY IN BENIGN PATHOLOGY
(
Download pdf )
RODRIGO S. QUINTELA,
LEONARDO R. COTTA, MARCELO F. NEVES, DAVID L. ABELHA JR, JOSE E. TAVORA
Section of
Urology, Hospital da Previdencia dos Servidores do Estado, Belo Horizonte,
Minas Gerais, Brazil
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
We report our experience with 43 retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy
for benign kidney disease.
Materials and Methods: All patients had
a poor function from obstructive uropathology and renal atrophy. None
of these patients had a previous lumbotomy. Retroperitoneoscopy was performed
with 4 trocar port technique in a lateral position. The retroperitoneal
space is created by using a Gaur’s balloon made of sterile glove.
The approach to vascular pedicle was done posteriorly and vessels were
clipped by metal and Hem-o-lock (Weck Closure Systems, North Carolina,
USA) clips. The sample was intact extracted in an Endo-Bag prolonging
one trocar incision.
Results: Median operative time was 160 minutes
and median blood loss was 200 mL. Four cases (9%) were converted to open
surgery: one case due to bleeding and 3 cases due to technical difficulties
regarding perirenal adherences. Most patients (39) checked out from the
Hospital in day two. Four of them were left over 3 days due to wound complications.
Conclusions: Retroperitoneoscopy offers
a safe, effective and reproductive access to nephrectomy for benign pathologies.
Key
words: kidney; nephrectomy; laparoscopy; retroperitoneal space
Int Braz J Urol. 2006; 32: 521-8
INTRODUCTION
Laparoscopic
nephrectomy was first successfully performed by Clayman in 1990 using
the transperitoneal route (1). The pure retroperitoneal access for nephrectomy
was described by Gaur three years later, using a balloon to create the
surgical working space (2,3). Despite the preference for retroperitoneal
approach in open urologic surgery worldwide the transperitoneal approach
is the preferred technique for laparoscopic urologic surgery. Furthermore
direct retroperitoneal access (retroperitoneoscopy) is attracting more
interest and application in urology, becoming the preferential approach
for nephrectomy in many expertise laparoscopic centers (4-9). This data
describes our experience with retroperitoneoscopic simple nephrectomy.
MATERIALS
AND METHODS
Forty-three
retroperitoneal laparoscopy nephrectomies were performed from November
2003 through 2005 for benign kidney disease. Our initial experience started
with retroperitoneal approach. This data show patients aged between 25-75
years, mean age was 47 years being 15 male and 28 females. Twenty nephrectomies
(46%) were performed in right kidneys and 23 cases in the left kidney
(54%). Symptomatology was presented as lumbar pain (56%), pyelonephritis
in 16 cases (37%) and three cases (7%) with renovascular hypertension.
The work up was done in all cases following ultrasound, intravenous pyelogram
(IVP) or axial computerized tomography and scint scan. Thirty-three patients
(76%) presented hydronephrosis with no renal function and the other 10
patients (24%) presented renal atrophy. The etiology of the renal damage
is showed in the Table-1. Three of the patients presented horseshoe kidneys
with UPJ (ureteral pelvic junction) syndrome. Two patients had previous
lumbar urologic interventions (percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and a percutaneous
nephrostomy).
Surgical
Technique
The patient is placed in lateral position
as in an open surgery (classical lumbotomy position) with general anesthesia.
In an attempt to get more room to face up the kidney, we flexed the table.
The camera assistant stays at the surgeon’s side at a cephalic position
and the second assistant stays at the opposite side. A transverse incision
(15 mm) is made just below the 12th costal arc and the muscles are dissected
until the toracolumbar fascia is opened achieving the retroperitoneal
space. A digital dissection is made in the retroperitoneal space pulling
the peritoneum anteriorly and displacing the fat from this body wall.
A Gaur balloon (Figure-1) is placed in the space and filled with 800 mL
of saline solution. The Hasson trocar is placed and fixed at the body
wall to avoid air linkage. A CO2 insufflation is performed
at a pressure of 12 mm. A 0º laparoscopic lent is introduced by the
Hasson port and the other trocars are placed under direct vision: a 10
mm trocar is placed 2 cm above the iliac crest and two 5 mm trocars are
placed in anterior axillary line (one next to the costal arc and the other
by the iliac crest) (Figure-2).
The psoas muscle is the main anatomic landmark.
This muscle is dissected and the ureter and the gonad vein in the left
or the inferior vena cava in the right are identified. The renal vein
is dissected in the right side following the vena cava and the renal artery
is dissected over the renal vein. In the left side, the renal vein is
identified following the gonad vein and the artery is found just above
the renal vein. Metal clips are used to occlude the artery and a Hem-o-lock
® (Weck Closure Systems, North Caroline, USA) clip is used at the
renal vein. After the vascular control, the dissection is initiated inside
the Gerota’s fascia by the renal upper pole preserving the adrenal
gland in most of the cases. The lower pole then is dissected and the ureter
is clip occluded with a metal clip. In cases of horseshoe kidney, the
renal isthmus is coagulated with an electrocautery and laparoscopically
sutured with absorbed suture if necessary. In voluminous hydronephrotic
kidneys the fluid in the collecting system is aspirated to facilitate
perirenal dissection. The specimen is entrapped in a handmade bag. In
cases where the samples are small, we utilize the first 15 mm lumbar incision
to remove the specimen and with larger samples we prolong the inguinal
port incision making a small Gibson’s incision (Figure-3). A Penrose
drain is placed in cases of infected kidney.
RESULTS
All
of the surgeries were performed by the same surgeon or under his supervision.
Table-2 resumes the results. Median operative time was 160 minutes (120
to 240 minutes) with average estimated blood loss of 200 mL. Blood transfusion
was not necessary in any of the cases. Three patients presented intra
surgical bleeding during pedicle dissection. Two patients with renal vein
bleeding were laparoscopic controlled with a Hem-o-lock clip close to
the vena cava. Another bleeding from an injury at the right adrenal vein
required conversion to open surgery.
There were no major complications. Six patients
developed abdominal body wall complications: three patients developed
subcutaneous emphysema with no clinical repercussion and a spontaneous
resolution; two patients developed surgical wound hematoma in the first
trocar incision and one patient developed surgical wound infection. All
of those patients were treated clinically.
Conversion was necessary in 4 cases (9%).
One patient due to hemorrhage and three patients due to technical difficulties.
All of them presented chronic or tuberculous pyelonephritis and perirenal
adherence. In none of the cases surgical reintervention was needed.
Diet was initiated 6 hours after surgery.
Most of the patients (39) were released from the hospital the second day
after surgery. Four patients were left in the hospital for more than 48
hours due to surgical wound complications.
Histopathological diagnosis confirmed three
cases of renal tuberculosis and 40 cases of renal atrophy with or without
chronic inflammatory process.
COMMENTS
Laparoscopic
nephrectomy is widely performed by the transperitoneal approach. After
retroperitoneal technique description by Gaur these has become the preferential
approach in outstanding centers for the surgical treatment of most kidney
pathologies even renal tumors (4-9).
The advantage of retroperitoneoscopy are
the preservation of the peritoneal cavity and the posterior access to
the renal pedicle making possible a straight dissection and the control
of the vessels in the first step of the surgery. This approach can be
done without any difficulties even in hard cases (10,11).
The main disadvantage of retroperitoneoscopy
is the reduced working space requiring a better synchronized surgical
team to avoid instrument collision. The use of Gaur’s balloon creates
a large space, which allow the surgeon to get enough room reaching all
the kidney limits.
The main contraindication of retroperitoneoscopy
is the presence of previous lumbotomy. Relative contraindication because
of technical aspects should be attempt in patients with chronic inflammatory
pathologies such as renal tuberculosis or xantogranulomatous pyelonephrosis
(10-12). In those cases, the possibility of conversion is higher because
of the adherences. In 3 cases of this series, patients with a chronic
inflammatory process (one with renal tuberculosis) were submitted to conversion
to open surgery due to technical difficulties. Furthermore, in two patients
with tuberculosis the surgery was performed without any difficulties or
complications. Some reported series show a significant number of cases
of renal tuberculosis successfully treated by retroperitoneoscopy (10,11).
Although it presents a better chance of conversion, the presence of a
chronic inflammatory process is not an absolute contraindication for laparoscopic
nephrectomy. In such cases, transperitoneal or hand-assisted laparoscopy
should be a better option.
Previous minimally invasive lumbar procedures
such as nephrostomy and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy do not exclude
retroperitoneoscopy (6,7,13). In two patients of this series with previous
history of nephrostomy and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, the procedure
was performed without any difficulties.
In patients with horseshoe kidney the presence
of anomalous vessels require an extra careful vascular approach (3). In
three patients of this series with horseshoe kidney retroperitoneal laparoscopic
nephrectomy was performed without difficulties in reaching the renal pedicle
but a longer operative time was needed.
The incidence of vascular lesions in transperitoneal
urological laparoscopic surgery vary between 1.5% to 2% in large series
(14,15). Although there is not much data for retroperitoneal approach
its reported incidence is similar (16). In this data we had three cases
of vascular bleeding during pedicle dissection. In one of the cases a
left adrenal vein bleeding required conversion to open surgery. Conversion
was not required in two other cases of renal pedicle bleeding. Conversion
to open surgery depends on the extension of the vascular lesion and of
the surgeon skills to control bleeding. A temporary increase of inflation
pressure up to 15 or 20 mmHg reduces venous hemorrhage in the retroperitoneal
space and a vascular control maneuver must be considered. In one case
it was necessary the placement of another trocar port for a better exposition.
We experienced no bleeding problems using metal clips for renal artery
control and Hem-o-lock (Weck Closure Systems, North Caroline, USA) clips
for renal vein control.
Emphysema is the most common abdominal wall
complication added to hematoma and wound infection (17). Hematoma at the
place of the trocar port is more often seen in retroperitoneal laparoscopy
rather than in transperitoneal laparoscopy. The reason for that is the
thick layer of lumbar muscle that offers a higher tension in mobilizing
instruments. This problem can be reduced by choosing the right place for
the trocar introduction in the body wall avoiding paravertebral muscle
and a close proximity to the bone structure such as costal arc and iliac
crest. In this data we had two cases of wound hematoma with a spontaneous
resolution and one case of wound infection treated clinically. The use
of a blunt tip cannula (Auto Suture-Menlo Park, California) not requiring
fixation to the body wall with sutures can avoid this complication.
The CO2 inflation can cause subcutaneous
emphysema, especially pneumothorax and pneumomediastine if the retroperitoneal
pressure reach levels over 15 mmHg (18). Usually no important clinical
repercussion is seen on those patients (19). A pressure of 12 mmHg gives
the surgeon a good working space. Three cases of subcutaneous emphysema
with no clinical repercussion were observed in this data.
Total surgical conversion frequency was
9%. Most of those conversions occurred due to hemorrhage or technique
difficulties caused by perirenal adherence. The data literature shows
up to 10% of conversion for simple laparoscopic nephrectomy (6,9). The
majority of conversions occur due to inflammatory processes or previous
surgeries (11). When surgical conversion becomes necessary it can be rapidly
performed by lumbotomy, prolonging the first trocar incision that allows
the surgeon to continue with the conventional lumbar incision with good
cosmetic results.
The sample extraction can be performed by
a new incision, amplifying the trocar incision or with morcellation. Pfannenstiel
incision, often propagated for transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy,
can be an alternative for sample extraction opening the peritoneum close
to the upper abdominal wall at the end of the procedure. Morcellation
avoids incision augmentation but promotes longer operative time and less
accuracy for the histopathology (20). We usually extract all samples by
the initial trocar incision if possible or by making a small 5 cm inguinal
incision (Gibson’s incision) with low morbidity and good cosmetic
results.
The retroperitoneal approach offers a lower
morbidity when compared to the transperitoneal approach because it does
not violate the peritoneal cavity. This benefit occurs not only due to
less intraperitoneal manipulation and less organ lesions but also due
to the reduction of the peritoneal contact with urine and blood (5,7,13).
Infected urine elimination during the surgery was observed in many patients
in this series without any further complication such as infection or postoperative
ileums.
Urology departments worldwide start their
laparoscopic nephrectomy experience through transperitoneal access, which
is considered the safest one and also the one that facilitates laparoscopic
dissection especially in early experiences. This series shows the initial
experience using retroperitoneal approach in a public Brazilian medical
center without any previous familiarity with urological laparoscopic surgery.
This experience demonstrates that the retroperitoneal approach is a safe,
reproductive and effective access for simple nephrectomy.
CONCLUSION
The
laparoscopic retroperitoneal approach for simple nephrectomy is a challenge
for the surgeon due to a smaller surgical working space but on the other
hand it is benefic to patients because it does not violate the peritoneal
cavity. Retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic approaches have
the same surgical indications but previous lumbotomy is a relative contraindication
for retroperitoneal access. Minimally invasive lumbar procedures such
as nephrostomy and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy are not contraindications.
An advantage to retroperitoneoscopy is the
straight access to the kidney and its renal pedicle making possible an
easier and faster approach as well as vascular control. Disadvantages
include the need to create a retroperitoneal space and a small working
area to dissect, proceed reconstructive maneuvers and bag the sample to
extract it out of the body.
Retroperitoneoscopy must be considered a
safe, effective and reproductive surgical technique for nephrectomy in
benign renal diseases.
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.
- Gaur DD, Agarwal DK, Purohit KC: Retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy:
initial case report. J Urol. 1993; 149: 103-5.
- Gaur DD: Laparoscopic operative retroperitoneoscopy: use of a new
device. J Urol. 1992; 148: 1137-9.
- 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.
- 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.
- Gupta NP, Goel R, Hemal AK, Dogra PN, Seth A, Aron M, et al.: Should
retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy be the standard of care for benign
nonfunctioning kidneys? An outcome analysis based on experience with
449 cases in a 5-year period. J Urol. 2004; 172: 1411-3.
- Hoznek A, Salomon L, Gettman M, Stolzenburg JU, Abbou CC: Justification
of extraperitoneal laparoscopic access for surgery of the upper urinary
tract. Curr Urol Rep. 2004; 5: 93-9.
- Rassweiler JJ, Seemann O, Frede T, Henkel TO, Alken P: Retroperitoneoscopy:
experience with 200 cases. J Urol. 1998; 160: 1265-9.
- Sebe P, de la Taille A, Hoznek A, Chopin D, Abbou CC, Salomon L:
Simple nephrectomy with retroperitoneal laparoscopy. Prog Urol. 2003;
13: 577-80.
- Hemal AK, Gupta NP, Kumar R: Comparison of retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy
with open surgery for tuberculous nonfunctioning kidneys. J Urol. 2000;
164: 32-5.
- Zhang X, Zheng T, Ma X, Li HZ, Li LC, Wang SG, et al.: Comparison
of retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy versus open approaches to nonfunctioning
tuberculous kidneys: a report of 44 cases. J Urol. 2005; 173: 1586-9.
- Merrot T, Ordorica-Flores R, Steyeart H, Ginier C, Valla JS: Is diffuse
xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis a contraindication to retroperitoneoscopic
nephroureterectomy? A case report. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1998; 8: 366-9.
- McDougall EM, Clayman RV: Laparoscopic nephrectomy for benign disease:
comparison of the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. J
Endourol. 1996; 10: 45-9.
- Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Clayman RV, Ehrlich R, Evans R, Fuchs G, et
al.: Complications of laparoscopic nephrectomy in 185 patients: a multi-institutional
review. J Urol. 1995; 154: 479-83.
- Vallancien G, Cathelineau X, Baumert H, Doublet JD, Guillonneau B:
Complications of transperitoneal laparoscopic surgery in urology: review
of 1,311 procedures at a single center. J Urol. 2002; 168: 23-6.
- Meraney AM, Samee AA, Gill IS: Vascular and bowel complications during
retroperitoneal laparoscopic surgery. J Urol. 2002; 168: 1941-4.
- Gill IS, Clayman RV, Albala DM, Aso Y, Chiu AW, Das S, et al.: Retroperitoneal
and pelvic extraperitoneal laparoscopy: an international perspective.
Urology. 1998; 52: 566-71.
- Streich B, Decailliot F, Perney C, Duvaldestin P: Increased carbon
dioxide absorption during retroperitoneal laparoscopy. Br J Anaesth.
2003; 91: 793-6.
- Ng CS, Gill IS, Sung GT, Whalley DG, Graham R, Schweizer D: Retroperitoneoscopic
surgery is not associated with increased carbon dioxide absorption.
J Urol. 1999; 162: 1268-72.
- Savage SJ, Gill IS: Intact specimen extraction during renal laparoscopy:
muscle-splitting versus muscle-cutting incision. J Endourol. 2001; 15:
165-9.
____________________
Accepted after revision:
May 25, 2006
_______________________
Correspondence
address:
Dr. Rodrigo Silva Quintela
Rua Correias 281 / 201
Belo Horizonte, MG, 30315-340, Brazil
E-mail: quintelarod@yahoo.com
EDITORIAL COMMENT
It
is a paper describing a retroperitoneal approach for nephrectomy in benign
disease. Endoscopic nephrectomy is usually performed by transperitoneal
rout and the merit of the paper is that it underlies the advantages of
using a retroperitoneal approach and shows that it is feasible. One important
shortcoming is the absence of a control group.
I
believe that vessels should be ligated with a transfixational technique
since it reduces the risk of intra and postoperative bleeding.
Conversion
rate was fairly high. Manual dissection of the peritoneum gives a large
working space. A hand-assisted technique also makes the operation easier,
quicker and safer.
It
could be argued that the total length of all incisions is longer than
a small anterior extraperitoneal incision or dorsal incision for open
surgery. The advantage with an endoscopic approach would be an extraction
sit with low morbidity and good cosmetic results. A Pfannenstiel incision
is therefore often propagated for the extraction (can also be used for
a hand assisted procedure).
Dr. Jonas
Wadström
Department of Surgical Sciences
Uppsala University Hospital
Uppsala, Sweden
E-mail: jonaswadstrom@akademiska.se
EDITORIAL COMMENT
Nowadays
many authors in many countries including Japan have already described
retroperitoneal nephrectomy for renal disease as a standard care. From
this standpoint of view, the impact and originality of this manuscript
is low internationally. However, as this may be a progressive approach
in developing countries, this manuscript will be informative for many
urologists working in these countries.
Dr. K.
Mita
Hiroshima University, Dept of Urology
Graduate School of Medical Sciences
Hiroshima City, Japan
E-mail: mita@plum.ocn.ne.jp
EDITORIAL
COMMENT
The
authors are to be congratulated on their excellent clinical results with
retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy.
In
cases with giant hydronephrosis, I usually insert percutaneous nephrostomy
intraoperativelly and adjust the volume of fluid within the collecting
system to facilitate perirenal dissection in the retroperitoneal space.
In
cases with horseshoe kidney, additional renal arteries may arise from
the aorta or the iliac vessels. Using the retroperitoneal approach, it
might be difficult to control hemorrhage or dividing the renal isthmus,
especially when it is thick. Therefore, I prefer to use the transperitoneal
approach in such cases.
Aside
from early and straightforward access to the renal vessels, the retroperitoneal
approach is not an easy operation because of a narrow working space and
the relative paucity of anatomical landmarks. Although the authors successfully
performed retroperitoneal nephrectomy despite of no previous experience
with urologic laparoscopy, I think it is exceptional and inapplicable
to general urologists. Educational training of laparoscopic surgery is
desirable.
Dr. A. Terai
Department of Urology
Kurashiki Central Hospital
Kurashiki, Japan
E-mail: at7899@kchnet.org.jp
EDITORIAL COMMEN
This
is a retrospective review of a clinical experience with retroperitoneal
laparoscopy for benign kidneys at a public hospital. The authors adequately
describe their technique. The results are in general favorable, but there
were several open conversions. Mostly for failure to progress from adhesions
but there was at least one case of bleeding required open conversion. Complications
were reported and discussed. I agree with the author’s contention
that the retroperitoneal technique is underutilized.
Dr. David A. Goldfarb
Division of Renal Transplant
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
E-mail: goldfad@ccf.org
|