TY - JOUR
T1 - Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy
AU - Jeong, Wooju
AU - Park, Sung Yul
AU - Lorenzo, Enrique Ian S.
AU - Oh, Cheol Kyu
AU - Han, Woong Kyu
AU - Rha, Koon Ho
PY - 2009/9/1
Y1 - 2009/9/1
N2 - Purpose: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) is an alternative treatment modality for small-sized renal tumors. Robot-assisted LPN (RLPN) has also been performed with an advantage in repairing the defect after a resection of the tumor. We compared the perioperative data of patients treated with LPN with patients who underwent RLPN. Materials and Methods: From September 2006 to April 2008, 26 patients were treated with LPN and 31 with RLPN. Three arms were used for RLPN; camera was inserted through the 12mm umbilical trocar port. Laparoscopic Bulldog clamps were used for clamping the renal hilum. We retrospectively compared each group on tumor size, operative time, estimated blood loss, warm ischemic time, and hospital stay. Result: Operative time of LPN was shorter than that of RLPN (p=0.034). Tumor size, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay were not significantly different in each group. No case was converted to open surgery. One patient in the RLPN group, however, was converted to robot-assisted radical nephrectomy because of severe bleeding. Conclusion: RLPN is safe and feasible for small-sized renal tumors. Warm ischemic time is within reasonable limits. Associated morbidity is also low.
AB - Purpose: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) is an alternative treatment modality for small-sized renal tumors. Robot-assisted LPN (RLPN) has also been performed with an advantage in repairing the defect after a resection of the tumor. We compared the perioperative data of patients treated with LPN with patients who underwent RLPN. Materials and Methods: From September 2006 to April 2008, 26 patients were treated with LPN and 31 with RLPN. Three arms were used for RLPN; camera was inserted through the 12mm umbilical trocar port. Laparoscopic Bulldog clamps were used for clamping the renal hilum. We retrospectively compared each group on tumor size, operative time, estimated blood loss, warm ischemic time, and hospital stay. Result: Operative time of LPN was shorter than that of RLPN (p=0.034). Tumor size, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay were not significantly different in each group. No case was converted to open surgery. One patient in the RLPN group, however, was converted to robot-assisted radical nephrectomy because of severe bleeding. Conclusion: RLPN is safe and feasible for small-sized renal tumors. Warm ischemic time is within reasonable limits. Associated morbidity is also low.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70349211949&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70349211949&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1089/end.2009.0302
DO - 10.1089/end.2009.0302
M3 - Article
C2 - 19698038
AN - SCOPUS:70349211949
SN - 0892-7790
VL - 23
SP - 1457
EP - 1460
JO - Journal of Endourology
JF - Journal of Endourology
IS - 9
ER -