Tag Archive for: laparoscopic

Posts

Video: Suture techniques during laparoscopic and robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy

Suture techniques during laparoscopic and robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and quantitative synthesis of peri‐operative outcomes

by Riccardo Bertolo (@RicBertolo)

Abstract

Objective

To summarize the available evidence on renorrhaphy techniques and to assess their impact on peri‐operative outcomes after minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN).

Materials and Methods

A systematic review of the literature was performed in January 2018 without time restrictions, using MEDLINE, Cochrane and Web of Science databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses statement recommendations. Studies providing sufficient details on renorrhaphy techniques during laparoscopic or robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy and comparative studies focused on peri‐operative outcomes were included in qualitative and quantitative analyses, respectively.

Results

Overall, 67 and 19 studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses, respectively. The overall quality of evidence was low. Specific tumour features (i.e. size, hilar location, anatomical complexity, nearness to renal sinus and/or urinary collecting system), surgeon’s experience, robot‐assisted technology, as well as the aim of reducing warm ischaemia time and the amount of devascularized renal parenchyma preserved represented the key factors driving the evolution of the renorrhaphy techniques during MIPN over the past decade. Quantitative synthesis showed that running suture was associated with shorter operating and ischaemia time, and lower postoperative complication and transfusion rates than interrupted suture. Barbed suture had lower operating and ischaemia time and less blood loss than non‐barbed suture. The single‐layer suture technique was associated with shorter operating and ischaemia time than the double‐layer technique. No comparisons were possible concerning renal functional outcomes because of non‐homogeneous data reporting.

Conclusions

Renorrhaphy techniques significantly evolved over the years, improving outcomes. Running suture, particularly using barbed wires, shortened the operating and ischaemia times. A further advantage could derive from avoiding a double‐layer suture.

Article of the week: 1-week and 4-week stenting equally effective after pyeloplasty

Every week the Editor-in-Chief selects the Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

One- vs 4-week stent placement after laparoscopic and robot-assisted pyeloplasty: results of a prospective randomised single-centre study

H. Danuser, C. Germann, N. Pelzer, A. Rühle, P. Stucki and A. Mattei

Klinik für Urologie, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether 1-week stenting of the pelvi-ureteric anastomosis of laparoscopic or robot-assisted pyeloplasty is as effective as 4-week stenting, based on their respective success rates.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 100 patients with pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction were treated by Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty and the anastomosis was stented using a 6-F JJ catheter for either 1 week (1W series) or 4 weeks (4W series), based on a randomisation protocol. Postoperative follow-up was performed at 3 months using intravenous urography (IVU), at 6 months using diuretic renography and at 1, 3 and 5 years using ultrasonography. Statistical analysis was performed using a one-sided Z-test, Pearsons’s chi-squared test and a Wilcoxon rank sum test.

RESULTS

The primary outcome measure, success rate, which was defined as no obstruction on IVU and diuretic renography, was 100% in the 1W series and not inferior to the success rate of 98% in the 4W series (P = 0.006). The following secondary outcome measures were not significantly different between the 1W and the 4W series with regard to residual symptoms (10 vs 6%; P = 0.48), rate of complications (4 vs 6%; P = 0.65), need for synchronous robot-assisted pyelolithotomy (4 vs 8%; P = 0.47), improvement in split renal function (1 vs 0%; P = 0.59) and duration of surgery (200 vs 192 min; P = 0.87). Only length of hospital stay was significantly different; this was shorter in the 1W series (5 vs 6 days; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Stenting of the pelvi-ureteric anastomosis after laparoscopic or robot-assisted pyeloplasty for 1 week is as effective as stenting for 4 weeks. Both procedures, laparoscopic or robot-assisted pyeloplasty have an excellent success rate.

Editorial: Early stent removal after pyeloplasty

In the current issue of BJUI Danuser et al. [1] present their prospective randomised single-centre study evaluating the effectiveness of 1-week vs the more traditional 4-week ureteric stent placement, after either a laparoscopic (LPP) or robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty procedure (RALPP) for PUJO.

In recent years LPP and RALPP have become the standard treatments for PUJO. In the adult population most patients undergoing this procedure require a period of ureteric stenting with a JJ stent, while the newly formed anastomosis heals. Many published pyeloplasty series report a stenting period of between 3 and 6 weeks [2-4]. The present study questions the need for such an extended period of stenting. With current minimal access techniques, either LPP or RALPP, it is possible to create a direct anastomosis between the ureter and renal pelvis similar to, and some would argue even more accurately than, that achievable via open surgery. The authors make the case that as historically most open pyeloplasty procedures were successfully stented for a period of 1 week, it seems only right to question why many of us continue to leave our ureteric stents in for longer periods after LPP and RALPP.

The negative impact of ureteric stent placement on patient health-related quality of life has been well documented in the literature. In 2003, Joshi et al. [5] published their study investigating the prevalence of symptoms associated with ureteric stents. They found that 78% of patients reported bothersome urinary symptoms that included storage symptoms, incontinence and haematuria, and >80% of patients had stent-related pain affecting daily activities. Furthermore, 58% reported reduced capacity to work and 32% reported sexual dysfunction. With this in mind, it is clear why we should try to reduce the period of ureteric stenting wherever possible, as long as it does not compromise patient outcome.

Danuser et al. [1] studied 100 consecutive patients with PUJO treated by an Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty performed laparoscopically or robotically. Patients were randomly assigned to have a 6-F JJ catheter for either 1 week, or for 4 weeks. Their primary outcome, success rate (defined as no obstruction on the IVU or renogram), was 100% in the 1-week group and 98% in the 4-week group (P = 0.006), showing that 1 week is equally effective. For secondary outcomes measures they found no difference in residual symptoms, rate of complications, need for synchronous robot-assisted pyelolithotomy, improvement in split renal function and duration of surgery between the two groups. They therefore conclude that stenting of the PUJO anastomosis for 1 week after LPP or RALPP is as effective as stenting for 4 weeks.

We are all responsible for constantly evaluating and challenging our medical and surgical practice to ensure that we are providing the best care possible for our patients. In surgery, in the absence of high-level evidence, many of the decisions and actions we take are those inherited from our teachers and mentors, as practices that are thought to be safe and effective. Postoperative patient management is one area where clinicians vary greatly in their practice and we all strive to ensure a safe and comfortable recovery for patients, while not compromising on surgical outcome.

In the postoperative management of pyeloplasty patients many of us continue to leave ureteric stents in for up to 4–6 weeks, as this is ‘safe’ practice. It has been my observation that despite careful counselling of what patients should expect postoperatively when they have a ureteric stent in situ, many complain of stent symptoms and often seek medical advice. This prospective randomised single-centre study by Danuser et al. [1] provides us with good evidence to support the role for a shorter duration of stenting, particularly in this group of patients where a good anastomosis can be created, without compromising patient outcome.

Jane Letitia Boddy
Department of Urology, New Cross Hospitals NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, UK

References

  1. Chow K, Adeyoju AA, Section of Endourology of The British Association of Urological Surgeons. National practice and outcomes of laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the United Kingdom. J Endourol 2011; 25: 657–662
  2. Mufarrij PW, Woods M, Shah OD et al. Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6 year, multi-institutional experience. J Urol 2008; 180: 1391–1396
  3. Joshi HB, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney AG, Barry MJ. Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility. J Urol 2003; 169: 1065–1069

 

© 2020 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.