Minimally invasive heminephrectomy

Feasibility and outcomes

Steven Sobey, A. Ari Hakimi, David Faleck, Reza Ghavamian

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) has become a well-established treatment for patients with selected renal malignancies. As the skills of urologic laparoscopic surgeons have increased, more complex and larger tumors are now being approached in this manner. Laparoscopic heminephrectomy (LHN), defined as the resection of >30% of a kidney, is described in this article. Standardized nephrometry scoring is used to grade tumor complexity; complications, renal function, and perioperative outcomes are discussed. Patients and Methods: One hundred forty-five patients underwent minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. Parameters studied included patient demographics, tumor characteristics, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), clamp time, change in renal function over time, and complication rate using the Clavien system. Results: Twenty-four patients underwent LHN. Patients who had LHN performed had significantly larger tumors (4.7 vs 2.6 cm, P=0.05) with higher nephrometry scoring (6.6 vs 5.0, P=0.007). On univariate analysis, both operative (176.0 vs 151.6 min, P=0.036) and clamp time (29.3 vs 21.9 min, P=0.003) were significantly increased. There was no difference in LOS, EBL, change of renal function over time, or complications. Conclusions: LHN is efficacious and feasible. Although both operative and clamp times were significantly increased, there was no significant impact on LOS, EBL, change in renal function over time, or complication rate.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)866-870
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Endourology
Volume26
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2012

Fingerprint

Nephrectomy
Kidney
Length of Stay
Neoplasms
Operative Time
Demography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Sobey, S., Hakimi, A. A., Faleck, D., & Ghavamian, R. (2012). Minimally invasive heminephrectomy: Feasibility and outcomes. Journal of Endourology, 26(7), 866-870. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0534

Minimally invasive heminephrectomy : Feasibility and outcomes. / Sobey, Steven; Hakimi, A. Ari; Faleck, David; Ghavamian, Reza.

In: Journal of Endourology, Vol. 26, No. 7, 01.07.2012, p. 866-870.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sobey, S, Hakimi, AA, Faleck, D & Ghavamian, R 2012, 'Minimally invasive heminephrectomy: Feasibility and outcomes', Journal of Endourology, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 866-870. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0534
Sobey, Steven ; Hakimi, A. Ari ; Faleck, David ; Ghavamian, Reza. / Minimally invasive heminephrectomy : Feasibility and outcomes. In: Journal of Endourology. 2012 ; Vol. 26, No. 7. pp. 866-870.
@article{f21d32e58edd4fda9461e3b85de04186,
title = "Minimally invasive heminephrectomy: Feasibility and outcomes",
abstract = "Background and Purpose: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) has become a well-established treatment for patients with selected renal malignancies. As the skills of urologic laparoscopic surgeons have increased, more complex and larger tumors are now being approached in this manner. Laparoscopic heminephrectomy (LHN), defined as the resection of >30{\%} of a kidney, is described in this article. Standardized nephrometry scoring is used to grade tumor complexity; complications, renal function, and perioperative outcomes are discussed. Patients and Methods: One hundred forty-five patients underwent minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. Parameters studied included patient demographics, tumor characteristics, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), clamp time, change in renal function over time, and complication rate using the Clavien system. Results: Twenty-four patients underwent LHN. Patients who had LHN performed had significantly larger tumors (4.7 vs 2.6 cm, P=0.05) with higher nephrometry scoring (6.6 vs 5.0, P=0.007). On univariate analysis, both operative (176.0 vs 151.6 min, P=0.036) and clamp time (29.3 vs 21.9 min, P=0.003) were significantly increased. There was no difference in LOS, EBL, change of renal function over time, or complications. Conclusions: LHN is efficacious and feasible. Although both operative and clamp times were significantly increased, there was no significant impact on LOS, EBL, change in renal function over time, or complication rate.",
author = "Steven Sobey and Hakimi, {A. Ari} and David Faleck and Reza Ghavamian",
year = "2012",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/end.2011.0534",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "866--870",
journal = "Journal of Endourology",
issn = "0892-7790",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Minimally invasive heminephrectomy

T2 - Feasibility and outcomes

AU - Sobey, Steven

AU - Hakimi, A. Ari

AU - Faleck, David

AU - Ghavamian, Reza

PY - 2012/7/1

Y1 - 2012/7/1

N2 - Background and Purpose: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) has become a well-established treatment for patients with selected renal malignancies. As the skills of urologic laparoscopic surgeons have increased, more complex and larger tumors are now being approached in this manner. Laparoscopic heminephrectomy (LHN), defined as the resection of >30% of a kidney, is described in this article. Standardized nephrometry scoring is used to grade tumor complexity; complications, renal function, and perioperative outcomes are discussed. Patients and Methods: One hundred forty-five patients underwent minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. Parameters studied included patient demographics, tumor characteristics, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), clamp time, change in renal function over time, and complication rate using the Clavien system. Results: Twenty-four patients underwent LHN. Patients who had LHN performed had significantly larger tumors (4.7 vs 2.6 cm, P=0.05) with higher nephrometry scoring (6.6 vs 5.0, P=0.007). On univariate analysis, both operative (176.0 vs 151.6 min, P=0.036) and clamp time (29.3 vs 21.9 min, P=0.003) were significantly increased. There was no difference in LOS, EBL, change of renal function over time, or complications. Conclusions: LHN is efficacious and feasible. Although both operative and clamp times were significantly increased, there was no significant impact on LOS, EBL, change in renal function over time, or complication rate.

AB - Background and Purpose: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) has become a well-established treatment for patients with selected renal malignancies. As the skills of urologic laparoscopic surgeons have increased, more complex and larger tumors are now being approached in this manner. Laparoscopic heminephrectomy (LHN), defined as the resection of >30% of a kidney, is described in this article. Standardized nephrometry scoring is used to grade tumor complexity; complications, renal function, and perioperative outcomes are discussed. Patients and Methods: One hundred forty-five patients underwent minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. Parameters studied included patient demographics, tumor characteristics, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), clamp time, change in renal function over time, and complication rate using the Clavien system. Results: Twenty-four patients underwent LHN. Patients who had LHN performed had significantly larger tumors (4.7 vs 2.6 cm, P=0.05) with higher nephrometry scoring (6.6 vs 5.0, P=0.007). On univariate analysis, both operative (176.0 vs 151.6 min, P=0.036) and clamp time (29.3 vs 21.9 min, P=0.003) were significantly increased. There was no difference in LOS, EBL, change of renal function over time, or complications. Conclusions: LHN is efficacious and feasible. Although both operative and clamp times were significantly increased, there was no significant impact on LOS, EBL, change in renal function over time, or complication rate.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84863845145&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84863845145&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/end.2011.0534

DO - 10.1089/end.2011.0534

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 866

EP - 870

JO - Journal of Endourology

JF - Journal of Endourology

SN - 0892-7790

IS - 7

ER -