Advertisement

Current Medical Science

, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp 834–839 | Cite as

Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Nephrectomy with Vein Thrombectomy: Initial Experience and Outcomes from a Single Surgeon

  • Xin-wen Ke
  • Xing Zeng
  • Xian Wei
  • Yuan-qing Shen
  • Jia-hua Gan
  • Ji-hua Tian
  • Zhi-quan Hu
Article
  • 16 Downloads

Abstract

This study was designed to explore the safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy with vein thrombectomy (RAL-NVT) for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with venous tumor thrombus (VTT). Clinical data of 6 patients treated with RAL-NVT between July 2016 and November 2017 in our hospital were retrospectively collected and analyzed. There were 5 males and 1 female with their age ranging from 48 years to 68 years. Five renal tumors were right-sided and one left-sided. Three cases fell in level 0 VTT, one in level I and two in level II. Preoperative imaging revealed lymph node involvement in 1 case and distant metastasis in 2 cases. For RCC with level 0 VTT, the renal vein of the affected side was adequately and carefully dissected around the thrombus to the proximity of inferior vena cava (IVC) and was ligated with Hem-o-loks without cross-clamping the IVC. For level I and II VTT, the IVC was crossclamped cephalically and caudally around the tumor thrombus and all tributaries were sequentially blocked to ensure the safe retrieval of VTT. All operations were successfully completed without conversion to open operation. The mean operative time was 150 (115–230) min. Cross-clamping of the IVC happened in 3 cases, and the blocking time was 14, 19 and 20 min, respectively. The mean estimated blood loss during the operation was 400 (200–580) mL. The peritoneal drainage tube was removed 5 to 9 days after the operation, and all patients were postoperatively discharged at 6 to 11 days. Postoperative pathological analysis confirmed that the RCCs were comprised of 4 clear cell RCCs, 1 papillary cell RCC, and 1 medullary cell RCC; 2 cases were Fuhrman grade II, 3 cases grade III, and 1 case undefined grade. No recurrence or progression was observed during the follow-up of 4.2 (3–6) months. We concluded that RAL-NVT is highly challenging but safe and feasible for the treatment of RCC with VTT.

Key words

robotics laparoscopy renal cell carcinoma venous tumor thrombus thrombectomy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chen W, Zheng R, Zhang S, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality in China, 2013. Cancer Lett, 2017,401:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abaza R, Shabsigh A, Castle E, et al. Multiinstitutional experience with robotic nephrectomy with inferior vena cava tumor thrombectomy. J Urol, 2016,195(4 Pt 1):865–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Agochukwu N, Shuch B. Clinical management of renal cell carcinoma with venous tumor thrombus. World J Urol, 2014,32(3):581–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abaza R. Initial series of robotic radical nephrectomy with vena caval tumor thrombectomy. Eur Urol, 2011,59(4):652–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abaza R, Eun DD, Gallucci M, et al. Robotic surgery for renal cell carcinoma with vena caval tumor thrombus. Eur Urol Focus, 2016,2(6):601–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang B, Li H, Ma X, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic inferior vena cava thrombectomy: Different Sides Require Different Techniques. Eur Urol, 2016,69(6):1112–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chopra S, Simone G, Metcalfe C, et al. Robot-assisted level II-III inferior vena cava tumor thrombectomy: step-by-step technique and 1-year outcomes. Eur Urol, 2017,72(2):267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gill IS, Metcalfe C, Abreu A, et al. Robotic level III inferior vena cava tumor thrombectomy: Initial series. J Urol, 2015,194(4):929–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol, 2010,17(6):1471–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blute ML, Leibovich BC, Lohse CM, et al. The Mayo clinic experience with surgical management, complications and outcome for patients with renal cell carcinoma and venous tumour thrombus. BJU Int, 2004,94(1):33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg, 2004,240(2):205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Romero FR, Muntener M, Bagga HS, et al. Pure laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with level IIvena caval thrombectomy. Urology, 2006,68(5):1112–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abaza R. Robotic surgery and minimally invasive management of renal tumors with vena caval extension. Curr Opin Urol, 2011,21(2):104–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ball MW, Gorin MA, Jayram G, et al. Robot-assisted radical nephrectomy with inferior vena cava tumor thrombectomy: technique and initial outcomes. Can J Urol, 2015,22(1):7666–7670Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tsui KH, Shvarts O, Smith RB, et al. Prognostic indicators for renal cell carcinoma: a multivariate analysis of 643 patients using the Revised 1997 TNM staging criteria. J Urol, 2000,163(4):1090–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bigot P, Fardoun T, Bernhard JC, et al. Neoadjuvant targeted molecular therapies in patients undergoing nephrectomy and inferior vena cava thrombectomy: is it useful? World J Urol, 2014,32(1):109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Huazhong University of Science and Technology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xin-wen Ke
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xing Zeng
    • 1
  • Xian Wei
    • 1
  • Yuan-qing Shen
    • 1
  • Jia-hua Gan
    • 1
  • Ji-hua Tian
    • 1
  • Zhi-quan Hu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical CollegeHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhaChina
  2. 2.Department of Urologythe Central Hospital of WuhanWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations