Laparoendoscopic single site surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for transperitoneal pyeloplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

We aimed to review studies comparing the outcomes of the laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) pyeloplasty with those of conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty (CLP). A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis) criteria. The methodological quality of the studies was rated according validated scales. The level of evidence (LE) was reported as described by the Oxford criteria. Preoperative demographic parameters and perioperative outcomes between the two surgical techniques were assessed. A meta-analysis of the included studies was performed. A total of 5 studies were elected for the analysis, including 164 cases, 70 (42.6%) of them being LESS and 94 (57.4%) being CLP. Four studies were observational retrospective comparative studies (LE: 3a-4); one was a prospective randomized controlled trial (LE: 2b). There was no significant difference in age, body mass index, gender, side and presence of the crossing vessel, between the groups. There was no significant difference regarding the operative time (weight mean difference [WMD]: -7.02; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -71.82-57.79; P = 0.83) and length of hospital stay (WMD: 0.04; 95% CI: -0.11-0.20; P = 0.58), whereas the estimated blood loss was statistically lower for LESS (WMD: -16.83; 95% CI: -31.79--1.87; P = 0.03). The postoperative use of analgesic favored the LESS group but without reaching statistical significance (WMD: -7.52; 95% CI: -17.56-2.53; P = 0.14). In conclusion, LESS pyeloplasty offers comparable surgical and functional outcomes to CLP while providing the potential advantages of less blood loss and lower analgesic requirement. Thus, despite being more technically challenging, LESS pyeloplasty can be regarded as a minimally invasive approach for patients seeking fewer incisional scars.

Use of biological Glue (Bioglue®) in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a study in pigs.

INTRODUCTION: Partial nephrectomy is the standard of care for localized renal tumors. However, bleeding and warm ischemia time are still controversial when laparoscopic surgeries are carried out. Herein, we aim to compare the outcomes from laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with and without the use of biological glue with purified bovine albumin and glutaraldehyde (BioGlue ®). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four kidneys of 12 pigs were used in this study. A pre-determined lower pole segment was resected (3 cm x 1 cm) and one of two different hemostatic techniques was performed. In one kidney, hemostatic ″ U suture ″ (poliglecaprone 3.0) was performed and in the contra-lateral kidney, only the biological glue was applied. Data recorded was comprised of warm ischemia time (seconds) and estimated blood loss (mL) for each procedure. In cases of bleeding after glue administration, a complementary suture was done. RESULTS: Mean warm ischemia time was 492.9 ± 113.1 (351-665) seconds and 746 ± 185.3 (409-1125) seconds for biological glue and suture groups, respectively. There was a positive significant difference in terms of warm ischemia favoring the biological glue group over the suture group (p<0.001). Mean blood loss was 39.4 (0-115) mL for the biological glue group and 39.1 (5-120) mL for the suture group (p=0.62). CONCLUSION: Biological glue is an important tool for laparoscopic partial nephrectomies. It is effective for hemostatic control in selected cases, and it can be used in combination with the traditional suture techniques.

Use of biological Glue (Bioglue®) in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a study in pigs

Introduction Partial nephrectomy is the standard of care for localized renal tumors. However, bleeding and warm ischemia time are still controversial when laparoscopic surgeries are carried out. Herein, we aim to compare the outcomes from laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with and without the use of biological glue with purified bovine albumin and glutaraldehyde (BioGlue®). Materials and Methods Twenty-four kidneys of 12 pigs were used in this study. A pre-determined lower pole segment was resected (3 cm x 1 cm) and one of two different hemostatic techniques was performed. In one kidney, hemostatic “U suture” (poliglecaprone 3.0) was performed and in the contra-lateral kidney, only the biological glue was applied. Data recorded was comprised of warm ischemia time (seconds) and estimated blood loss (mL) for each procedure. In cases of bleeding after glue administration, a complementary suture was done. Results Mean warm ischemia time was 492.9±113.1 (351-665) seconds and 746±185.3 (409-1125) seconds for biological glue and suture groups, respectively. There was a positive significant difference in terms of warm ischemia favoring the biological glue group over the suture group (p<0.001). Mean blood loss was 39.4 (0-115) mL for the biological glue group and 39.1 (5-120) mL for the suture group (p=0.62). Conclusion Biological glue is an important tool for laparoscopic partial nephrectomies. It is effective for hemostatic control in selected cases, and it can be used in combination with the traditional suture techniques. .

Urine leak in minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: analysis of risk factors and role of intraoperative ureteral catheterization

Purpose To investigate risk factors for urine leak in patients undergoing minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) and to determine the role of intraoperative ureteral catheterization in preventing this postoperative complication. Materials and Methods MIPN procedures done from September 1999 to July 2012 at our Center were reviewed from our IRB-approved database. Patient and tumor characteristics, operative techniques and outcomes were analyzed. Patients with evidence of urine leak were identified. Outcomes were compared between patients with preoperative ureteral catheterization (C-group) and those without (NC-group). Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify factors predicting postoperative urine leak. Results A total of 1,019 cases were included (452 robotic partial nephrectomy cases and 567 laparoscopic partial nephrectomy cases). Five hundred twenty eight patients (51.8%) were in the C-group, whereas 491 of them (48.2%) in the NC-group. Urine leak occurred in 31(3%) cases, 4.6% in the C-group and 1.4% in the NC-group (p<0.001). Tumors in NC-group had significantly higher RENAL score, shorter operative and warm ischemic times. On multivariable analysis, tumor proximity to collecting system (OR=9.2; p<0.01), surgeon’s early operative experience (OR=7.8; p<0.01) and preoperative moderate to severe CKD (OR=3.1; p<0.01) significantly increased the odds of the occurrence of a postoperative urine leak. Conclusion Clinically significant urine leak after MIPN in a high volume institution setting is uncommon. This event is more likely to occur in cases of renal masses that are close to the collecting system, in patients with preoperative CKD and when operating surgeon is still in the learning curve for the procedure. Our findings suggest that routine intraoperative ureteral catheterization during MIPN does not reduce the probability of postoperative urine leak. In addition, it adds to the overall ...

Step-by-Step robotic heminephrectomy for duplicated renal collecting system.

INTRODUCTION: A duplicated renal collecting system is a relatively common congenital anomaly rarely presenting in adults. AIM: In this video we demonstrate our step-by-step technique of Robotic heminephrectomy in a patient with non-functioning upper pole moiety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following cystoscopy and ureteral catheter insertion the patient was placed in 60° modified flank position with the ipsilateral arm positioned at the side of the patient. A straight-line, three arm robotic port configuration was employed. The robot was docked at a 90-degree angle, perpendicular to the patient. Following mobilization the colon and identifying both ureters of the duplicated system, the ureters were followed cephalically toward, hilar vessels where the hilar anatomy was identified. The nonfunctioning pole vasculature was ligated using hem-o-lok clips. The ureter was sharply divided and the proximal ureteral stump was passed posterior the renal hilum. Ureteral stump was used as for retraction and heminephrectomy is completed along the line demarcating the upper and lower pole moieties. Renorrhaphy was performed using 0-Vicryl suture with a CT-1 needle. The nonfunctioning pole ureter was then dissected caudally toward the bladder hiatus, ligated using clips, and transected. RESULTS: The operating time was 240 minutes and blood loss was 100 cc. There was no complication post-operatively. CONCLUSIONS: Wrist articulation and degree of freedom offered by robotic platform facilitates successful performance of minimally invasive heminephrectomy in the setting of an atrophic and symptomatic renal segment.

Step-by-Step robotic heminephrectomy for duplicated renal collecting system

Introduction A duplicated renal collecting system is a relatively common congenital anomaly rarely presenting in adults. Aim In this video we demonstrate our step-by-step technique of Robotic heminephrectomy in a patient with non-functioning upper pole moiety. Materials and Methods Following cystoscopy and ureteral catheter insertion the patient was placed in 600 modified flank position with the ipsilateral arm positioned at the side of the patient. A straight-line, three arm robotic port configuration was employed. The robot was docked at a 90-degree angle, perpendicular to the patient. Following mobilization the colon and identifying both ureters of the duplicated system, the ureters were followed cephalically toward, hilar vessels where the hilar anatomy was identified. The nonfunctioning pole vasculature was ligated using hem-o-lok clips. The ureter was sharply divided and the proximal ureteral stump was passed posterior the renal hilum. Ureteral stump was used as for retraction and heminephrectomy is completed along the line demarcating the upper and lower pole moieties. Renorrhaphy was performed using 0-Vicryl suture with a CT-1 needle. The nonfunctioning pole ureter was then dissected caudally toward the bladder hiatus, ligated using clips, and transected. Results The operating time was 240 minutes and blood loss was 100 cc. There was no complication post-operatively. Conclusions Wrist articulation and degree of freedom offered by robotic platform facilitates successful performance of minimally invasive heminephrectomy in the setting of an atrophic and symptomatic renal segment. .

Urine leak in minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: analysis of risk factors and role of intraoperative ureteral catheterization.

PURPOSE: To investigate risk factors for urine leak in patients undergoing minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) and to determine the role of intraoperative ureteral catheterization in preventing this postoperative complication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MIPN procedures done from September 1999 to July 2012 at our Center were reviewed from our IRB-approved database. Patient and tumor characteristics, operative techniques and outcomes were analyzed. Patients with evidence of urine leak were identified. Outcomes were compared between patients with preoperative ureteral catheterization (C-group) and those without (NC-group). Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify factors predicting postoperative urine leak. RESULTS: A total of 1,019 cases were included (452 robotic partial nephrectomy cases and 567 laparoscopic partial nephrectomy cases). Five hundred twenty eight patients (51.8%) were in the C-group, whereas 491 of them (48.2%) in the NC-group. Urine leak occurred in 31(3%) cases, 4.6% in the C-group and 1.4% in the NC-group (p<0.001). Tumors in NC-group had significantly higher RENAL score, shorter operative and warm ischemic times. On multivariable analysis, tumor proximity to collecting system (OR=9.2; p<0.01), surgeon's early operative experience (OR=7.8; p<0.01) and preoperative moderate to severe CKD (OR=3.1; p<0.01) significantly increased the odds of the occurrence of a postoperative urine leak. CONCLUSION: Clinically significant urine leak after MIPN in a high volume institution setting is uncommon. This event is more likely to occur in cases of renal masses that are close to the collecting system, in patients with preoperative CKD and when operating surgeon is still in the learning curve for the procedure. Our findings suggest that routine intraoperative ureteral catheterization during MIPN does not reduce the probability of postoperative urine leak. In addition, it adds to the overall operative time.