单孔与传统后腹腔镜肾癌根治术的比较研究

目的:对比分析单孔与传统后腹腔镜肾癌根治性切除术的手术效果,探讨单孔后腹腔镜肾癌根治术的可行性和优越性。方法:回顾性分析2015年1月～2018年6月我院35例经后腹腔单孔腹腔镜和36例传统后腹腔镜肾癌根治术患者的临床资料,对两组手术时间、术中失血量、切口累计长度、术后皮下气肿发生率、肠通气恢复时间、术后留置引流管时间、术后住院天数等临床数据进行比较。结果:两组患者在手术时间、术中失血量、术后肠通气恢复时间、术后留置引流管时间、术后住院天数等方面比较差异均无统计学意义,但单孔腹腔镜组皮下气肿发生率及切口累计长度均小于传统腹腔镜组。结论:单孔后腹腔镜肾癌根治术安全可行,与传统后腹腔镜肾癌根治术相比具有切口美观、并发症更少等优点。     

经后腹腔镜肾癌根治术临床分析

目的探讨经后腹腔镜肾癌根治术的效果。方法随机将接受后腹腔镜肾癌根治术的178例肾癌分为2组,各89例。观察组给予行后腹腔镜手术,对照组实施开放手术。对比2组治疗效果。结果观察组手术时间、术中出血量、下床活动时间、术后住院时间、肠功能恢复时间、引流管留置时间及并发症发生率均优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论与开放手术比较,经后腹腔镜肾癌根治术效果更加优越。     

腹腔镜与开放保留肾单位手术治疗小肾癌的临床比较

目的通过腹腔镜保留肾单位手术(LNSS)与开放保留肾单位手术(ONSS)切除小肾癌的临床指标的对比研究,评价腹腔镜保留肾单位手术治疗小肾癌的安全性和有效性。方法选取本中心2009年6月至2011年6月期间行保留肾单位手术治疗的小肾癌患者51例,其中27例行腹腔镜保留肾单位手术,余24例行开放保留肾单位手术。对两组患者肿瘤大小、手术时间、肾脏热缺血时间、术中出血量、输血例数、引流管留置时间、术后住院时间、切口长度、相关并发症、术前及术后3个月患侧肾的肾小球滤过率(GFR)等指标进行回顾性分析。结果 51例患者均成功施行保留肾单位手术,患者年龄、性别、肿瘤大小、肿瘤侧别、术前患肾GFR、术后引流管留置时间、术后3个月患肾功能等均没有明显差异;手术时间、术中出血量、切口长度、并发症、术后住院天数等,LNSS组明显低于ONSS组(P<0.05);肾脏热缺血时间,LNSS组明显长于ONSS组(P<0.05)。结论腹腔镜保留肾单位手术能完整切除肿瘤,有效控制术中出血,最大限度的保留肾单位,保护肾脏功能。与开放保留肾单位手术相比,LNSS是一种创伤小、手术时间短、并发症少、术后恢复快的手术方式,是治疗小肾癌的有效方法。     

加速康复外科在腹腔镜肾癌根治术中应用的安全性及有效性研究

目的:探讨加速康复外科(fast track surgery,FTS)对腹腔镜肾癌根治术的影响。方法:将同期入院的60例腹腔镜肾癌根治术患者随机分为两组,分别采用加速康复(FTS组)及常规围手术期处理(对照组)方案,对比分析两组患者术后通气时间、开始进食时间、导尿管与引流管留置时间、术后住院时间、住院费用、并发症发生率、疼痛评分等,患者均在满足出院标准的情况下安排出院。结果:FTS组通气时间、首次下床活动时间、开始进食时间明显提前,导尿管与引流管留置时间、术后住院时间、住院费用明显减少,术中、术后并发症两组差异无统计学意义,术后24 h、48 h咳嗽状态评分两组相比差异有统计学意义。结论:加速康复外科应用于腹腔镜肾癌根治术是安全、有效的,可加速患者的康复。     

腹腔镜与开放保留肾单位手术治疗囊性肾癌的比较

【摘要】目的 评价腹腔镜保留肾单位手术(laparoscopice nephron-sparing surgery,LNSS)与开放保留肾单位手术(open nephron-sparing surgery,ONSS)治疗囊性肾癌的优劣。方法 回顾性分析14例分别行 LNSS 患者(n=6)与行 ONSS 患者(n=8)的临床资料,比较两组患者术中出血量、手术时间、热缺血时间、术后疼痛评分、术后引流管天数、住院天数及术后随访资料并行统计学分析。结果 LNSS 组术中出血量、术后疼痛评分明显小于 ONSS 组,LNSS 组热缺血时间及手术时间长于 ONSS 组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),引流管留置时间及住院天数两者差异无统计学差异。结论 LNSS与ONSS 两种术式在囊性肾癌的治疗中各有优势,LNSS创伤更小,术后恢复更快,但手术要求高。     

腹股沟斜切口在后腹腔镜肾癌根治术中的应用

目的 总结腹股沟斜切口在后腹腔镜肾癌根治术中的应用体会.方法 选择我院2009年4月至2011年8月开展的后腹腔镜肾癌根治术202例,根据手术标本取出切口的不同分为实验组和对照组,实验组78例采用腹股沟斜切口取出标本,对照组124例采用腰部斜切口.对其手术时间、术中出血量、患者住院时间、切口并发症以及美容满意度进行比较.结果 本组202例后腹腔镜肾癌根治术均全部成功,未出现死亡和重大并发症.实验组和对照组手术时间、术中出血量差异无统计学意义;两组术后需镇痛治疗、切口感染、切口脂肪液化、切口疝、切口膨出、腰腹部不对称病例分别为2例和23例(P＜0.05)、1 例和12例(P＜0.05)、0例和6例(P＜0.05)、0例和3例(P＜0.05)、0例和2例(P＜0.05)、0例和14例(P＜0.05);两组平均住院时间分别为(5.2±2.3)d和(6.8±3.4)d(P＜0.05);实验组美容满意度明显高于对照组.结论 对于后腹腔镜肾癌根治术,腹股沟斜切口用于手术标本的取出具有创伤小、切口并发症少、患者美容满意度高等优点,值得临床广泛推广.     

腹腔镜下T_2大体积肾癌根治术

目的 评价腹腔镜下T_2大体积肾癌根治术的临床应用价值. 方法 回顾性分析30例T_2大体积肾癌腹腔镜肾癌根治切除术(腔镜组)和同期36例开放肾癌根治术(开放组)患者的临床资料.①腔镜组平均年龄(58.05±8.5)岁.CT检查肿瘤直径平均(8.5±2.2)cm.肿瘤位于左肾17例,右肾13例;肾上极4例,中部10例,下极14例,肾门水平2例.经后腹膜途径22例,经腹腔途径8例;肿瘤分期均为T_2M_0N_0.②开放组平均年龄(60.0±9.0)岁.CT检查肿瘤直径平均(8.8±2.1)cm.肿瘤位于左肾20例,右肾16例:肾上极9例,中部10例,下极11例,肾门水平6例.经腰部切口26例,经肋缘下腹腔途径10例.肿瘤分期均为T_2.比较2组手术时间、术中出血、术后恢复及围手术期并发症. 结果 腔镜组手术时间、术中出血量、胃肠功能恢复时间、引流管留置时间、术后下床活动时间、住院天数分别为(176±33)min、(200±80)ml、(1.8±0.5)d、(3.0±1.0)d、(3.0±1.0)d、(6.0±3.0)d,开放组分别为(130±27)min、(380±185)ml、(3.8±0.6)d、(5.0±2.0)d,(5.0±2.0)d、(11.0±4.0)d,2组比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01).围手术期并发症腹腔镜组有出血3例、高碳酸血症3例、肠梗阻1例、肝脏损伤1例,开放手术组出血5例、肠梗阻2例、肝脏损伤1例、切口感染1例,腔镜组和开放组围手术期并发症发生率分别为26.7%和27.8%,2组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).腔镜组1例因肿瘤包绕肾蒂血管,无法游离肾蒂血管,中转开放手术.平均随访(15±2)个月,腔镜组出现肿瘤肺转移2例.开放组出现肝转移2例,肺转移1例.未发生肿瘤切口和穿刺孔种植. 结论 腹腔镜下肾癌根治性切除术治疗T_2大体积肾肿瘤手术安全可行.     

后腹腔镜下与开放性肾癌根治术治疗局限性肾癌的比较

目的对比腹膜后腹腔镜肾癌根治术与开放性肾癌根治术治疗局限性肾癌的临床疗效。方法回顾分析2010年1月至2013年6月我院收治的局限性肾癌患者65例,其中行后腹腔镜下肾癌根治术35例,开放性肾癌根治术30例,比较两组的一般临床资料和疗效指标的差别。结果两组患者的年龄、BMI、肿瘤位置、肿瘤大小、手术时间差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）,而手术出血量、术后拔除引流管时间、术后下床活动时间、术后住院时间等方面后腹腔镜下手术优于开放性手术,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论与开放肾癌根治术相比,后腹腔镜下肾癌根治术具有出血少、术后恢复快的优点,是一种安全、有效的治疗方法,可作为局限性肾癌的首选治疗方法。     

腹膜后腹腔镜肾癌根治术与开放手术临床疗效的对比研究

目的:评价腹膜后腹腔镜肾癌根治术和开放式肾癌根治术的临床疗效。方法:采用两种手术方法,比较两组的一般临床资料和疗效指标的差别。结果:两组患者的年龄、性别、肿瘤最大直径、肿瘤分期、病理诊断差异无统计学意义(P0.05),而两组的疗效指标,包括手术时间、术中出血、术后下床活动时间、术后拔除引流管时间、术后住院时间、并发症发生率等,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:腹膜后腹腔镜肾癌根治术与传统开放手术相比,具有较好的临床疗效。     

经第9肋间胸腹联合切口与腰部切口切除巨大肾肿瘤的疗效比较

目的:比较经胸腹联合切口及经腰部切门切除巨大肾肿瘤的疗效.方法:对60例巨大肾肿瘤患者,32例经第九肋间胸腹联合切口(胸腹切口组)、28例经腰部切口(腰部切口组)手术切除.对两组患者的手术时间、术中失血等相关指标进行比较.结果:胸腹切口组平均手术时间、术中出血量、肿瘤大小及生存率分别为(117.3±8.1)min、(150.2±10.1)ml、(20.17±2.23)cnl和96.7%;腰部切口组分别为(123.6±4.9)min、(209.9±12.7)ml、(18.00±2.19)cm和78.6%,两组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);术后胃肠功能恢复腰部切口组优于胸腹切口组;术后拔除引流管时间、使用止痛药的病例数及时间、下床活动时间、住院天数、疼痛消失时间、并发症、恢复正常活动及工作时间两组无明显差异.结论:与传统的经腰部切口相比,经胸腹联合胸腹切口具有显露好、视野开阔,手术时间短、出血少等优点,是一种安全、有效的途径.     

Laparoscopic nephrectomy

OBJECTIVE: To present our experience of laparoscopic nephrectomy or nephroureterectomy performed over a 4-year period in terms of feasibility and complications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 103 patients (58 females, 45 males; median age 58 years) underwent laparoscopic nephrectomy or nephroureterectomy between 1 October 1999 and 1 October 2003. The indications were renal cell cancer (n = 39), transitional cell cancer (n = 23), end-stage pyelonephritis (n = 26), end-stage hydronephrosis (n = 11) and renovascular hypertension (n = 4). Ninety-eight patients were operated on transperitoneally and five retroperitoneally. All procedures were done in the lateral position. RESULTS: Seven procedures had to be converted to open procedures for the following reasons: poor visualization of the renal hilum (n = 5); bleeding from a splenic laceration (n = 1); and difficulty finding the kidney via a retroperitoneal approach (n = 1). The median operating time was 190 min, which decreased with experience. The median blood loss was 150 ml. There were two major complications (one small bowel perforation and one port-site herniation, both necessitating re-exploration) and seven minor complications (five infections, one case of temporary hip pain and one of surgical emphysema). Conclusions. Laparoscopic nephrectomy is a technically demanding procedure with the risk of serious complications, especially in the initial learning phase. However, after gaining experience the procedure can be performed with an acceptable operating time, minimal morbidity and a short hospital stay. Laparoscopic nephrectomy should be the standard procedure in most cases, both malignant and benign, with the possible exception of tumours > 10 cm. In order to expand the use of the technique, it is important to focus specifically on laparoscopic training in the education of trainee urologists.     

后腹腔镜下与开放式两种肾癌根治术的疗效比较

目的：比较后腹腔镜肾癌根治术和开放肾癌根治术的治疗效果。方法：行后腹腔镜肾癌根治术32例，开放肾癌根治术20例，比较两种方法的手术时间、出血量、住院时间、手术效果的差别。结果：后腹腔镜手术时间为50～240min，平均120min，全部手术顺利，出血50～70ml，平均60ml，均未输血，平均住院7d；开放手术时间为120～360min，平均200min，出血100～300m1．平均200ml，均未输血，平均住院10d。结论：后腹腔镜肾癌根治术同开放肾癌根治术相比，出血少，恢复快，但手术效果相当。因此，后腹腔镜肾癌根治术是今后的发展方向。     

Comparative outcomes of open nephrectomy, hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy, and full laparoscopic nephrectomy for living donors

Objective

Kidney transplantation is a standard treatment for end-stage renal disease. There are many methods of harvesting kidneys from living donors. At present, the role of minimally invasive surgery, including hand-assisted and full laparoscopic nephrectomy, is well established and tends to replace open surgery at many institutions. We conducted a retrospective study to compare the outcomes of these operative procedures at Ramathibodi Hospital in Bangkok.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively reviewed 200 patients who underwent open nephrectomy (ON), hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HALN), and full laparoscopic nephrectomy (FLN) between January 2006 and November 2010. Demographic data, type of surgical procedure, operative time, warm ischemic time (WIT), length of hospital stay (LOH), estimated blood loss (EBL), analgesic use, and complications from surgery were recorded. Results were compared using a one-way analysis of variance in order to determine differences.

Results

During the study period, 200 living kidney donors underwent nephrectomy. Of these, 95 (47.5%) received ON, 23 (11.5%) received HALN, and 82 (41%) received FLN. The operative time for the patients who underwent HALN and FLN was statistically significantly longer than that of the patients who underwent ON. On the other hand, the EBL for the ON group was significantly greater than for the HALN and FLN groups. The WIT was shortest for the ON group, followed by the HALN and FLN groups. The LOH did not differ among the three groups. Analgesic use was significantly higher in the ON group. Surgical complications were identified in 24 patients (12%).

Conclusion

Our results show that laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy is a relatively safe procedure when performed by experienced surgeons at appropriate institutions. Though the operative times and WITs were slightly longer and the cost was higher for the laparoscopic groups, the EBL was lower and the pain score was lower. Indeed, laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy is an attractive alternative surgical procedure. However, there is a long learning curve and experienced surgeons are required.