Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: Retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach

  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy can be efficaciously performed by either the transperitoneal or the retroperitoneal laparoscopic approach. The primary indication for selecting one approach over another has historically depended on the individual surgeon’s experience and training. With either technique, laparoscopy adheres to established surgical oncologic principles of wide specimen mobilization and early vascular control. This article reviews the history, contraindications, anatomic considerations, patient preparation, and surgical technique of these two laparoscopic approaches. A salient summary of the worldwide experience with these procedures is presented, as well as a brief synopsis of controversial arguments favoring specimen morcellation versus intact extraction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR, Soper NJ, et al.: Laparoscopic nephrectomy: initial case report. J Urol 1991, 146:278–282.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bartel M: Retroperitonescopy. An endoscopic method for inspection and bioptic examination of the retroperitoneal space [in German]. Zentralbl Chir 1969, 94:377–383.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gaur DD, Agarwal DK, Purohit KC: Retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy: initial case report. J Urol 1993, 149:103–105.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ono Y, Katoh N, Kinukawa T, et al.: Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: the Nagoya experience. J Urol 1997, 158:719–723.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gill IS, Clayman RV, Albala DM, et al.: Retroperitoneal and pelvic extraperitoneal laparoscopy: an international perspective. Urology 1998, 52:566–571. A questionnaire survey of 24 laparoscopic urology centers to assess current practice trends of extraperitoneal laparoscopic surgery.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Fazeli-Matin S, Gill IS, Hsu TH, et al.: Laparoscopic renal and adrenal surgery in obese patients: comparison to open surgery. J Urol 1999, 162:665–669.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chiu AW, Chen KK, Wang JH, et al.: Direct needle insufflation for pneumoperitoneum: anatomic confirmation and clinical experience. Urology 1995, 46:432.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Capelouto CC, Moore RG, Silverman SG, Kavoussi LR: Retroperitoneoscopy: anatomical rationale for direct retroperitoneal access. J Urol 1994, 152:2008.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Matin SF, Novick AC: Renal dysfunction associated with staged bilateral partial nephrectomy: the importance of operative positioning. J Urol 2001, 165:880–881.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Yokoyama M, Ueda W, Hirakawa M: Haemodynamic effects of the lateral decubitus position and the kidney rest lateral decubitus position during anesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2000, 84:753. A very well done study examining the hemodynamic effects of the lateral position with and without use of the kidney rest. Elevation of the kidney rest caused a significant increase in mean arterial, right atrial, and pulmonary wedge pressures, along with significant decreases in cardiac and stroke volume indices.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gill IS, Cherullo EE, Meraney AM, et al.: Vaginal extraction of the intact specimen following laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. J Urol 2002, 167:238–241.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ono Y, Kinukawa T, Hattori R, et al.: The long-term outcome of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for small renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2001, 165:1867–1870. One of the largest single-center international experiences (85 patients) with transperitoneal radical nephrectomy. Results were reported for a total of 103 patients, including those who underwent retroperitoneal radical nephrectomy.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Cicco A, Salomon L, Hoznek H, et al.: Carcinological risks and retroperitoneal laparoscopy. Euro Urol 2000, 38:606–612.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hsu TH, Matin S, Meraney A, et al.: Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: clinical and pathological update. Paper presented at the World Congress of Endourology. Bangkok; November 2001.

  15. Guinan P, Sobin LH, Algaba F, et al.: TNM staging of renal cell carcinoma: Workgroup No.3. Cancer 1997, 80:995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Barrett PH, Fentie DD, Taranger LA: Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with morcellation for renal cell carcinoma: the Saskatoon experience. Urol 1998, 52:23–28.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Janetschek G, Jeschke K, Peschel R, et al.: Laparoscopic surgery for stage T1 renal cell carcinoma: radical nephrectomy and wedge resection. Euro Urol 2000, 38:131–138.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Jeschke K, Wakonig J, Pitzler C, Henning K: Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: a single-center experience of 51 cases. Tech Urol 2000, 6:9–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Dunn MD, Portis AJ, Shalhav AL, et al.: Laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy: a 9-year experience. J Urol 2000, 164:1153–1159. A single-center retrospective report analyzing laparoscopic and open radical nephrectomy. The authors show similar efficacy at 2 years follow-up for patients with T1 and T2 tumors, with decreased postoperative pain and a faster convalescence in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kavoussi LR, Chan DY, Fabrizio MD, Cadeddu JA: Cancer control of laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma [abstract]. J Urol 1999, 161:167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gill IS, Meraney AM, Schweizer D, et al.: Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in 100 patients: a single center experience from the United States. Cancer 2001, 92:1843–1855. A meticulously detailed and carefully analyzed report evaluating multiple variables affecting outcomes after laparoscopic radical nephrectomy.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Clayman RV, et al.: Complications of laparoscopic nephrectomy in 185 patients: a multi-institutional review. J Urol 1995, 154:479–483.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cadeddu JA, Ono Y, Clayman RV, et al.: Laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cell cancer: evaluation of efficacy and safety: a multicenter experience. Urology 1998, 52:773–777. A retrospective evaluation of 157 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for pathologically confirmed RCC. This multicenter study was important in showing the lack of port site recurrences and an actuarial 5-year disease-free rate of 91%, providing for salient short- and intermediate-term data supporting the feasibility of this approach for RCC.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Johnson CD, Dunnick NR, Cohan RH, Illescas FF: Renal adenocarcinoma: CT staging of 100 tumors. Am J Roentgenol 1987, 148:59–63.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Van Poppel H, Vandendriessche H, Boel K, et al.: Microscopic vascular invasion is the most important prognosticator after radical nephrectomy for clinically nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 1997, 158:45–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Levy DA, Slaton JW, Swanson DA, Dinney CP: Stage specific guidelines for surveillance after radical nephrectomy for local renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 1998, 159:1163–1167. This study confirms that the risk for developing metastatic RCC after nephrectomy is dependent on the pathologic stage of the specimen. The authors suggest a stage-specific surveillance protocol.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Laparoscopic and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Urological Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, 44195, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Surena F. Matin MD & Inderbir S. Gill MD, MCh

Authors
  1. Surena F. Matin MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Inderbir S. Gill MD, MCh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Matin, S.F., Gill, I.S. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: Retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach. Curr Urol Rep 3, 164–171 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-002-0030-7

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-002-0030-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation