Necessity of prophylactic drainage tube in retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephroureterectomy with open distal ureterectomy: A matched-pair analysis.
Humans
Nephroureterectomy
/ adverse effects
Carcinoma, Transitional Cell
/ pathology
Matched-Pair Analysis
Lymphocele
/ etiology
Laparoscopy
/ adverse effects
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
/ surgery
Ureteral Neoplasms
/ pathology
Kidney Neoplasms
/ surgery
Drainage
/ adverse effects
Retrospective Studies
Treatment Outcome
drainage
laparoscopy
nephroureterectomy
propensity score matching
upper tract urothelial carcinoma
Journal
International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association
ISSN: 1442-2042
Titre abrégé: Int J Urol
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 9440237
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2023
07 2023
Historique:
received:
07
10
2022
accepted:
03
03
2023
medline:
31
7
2023
pubmed:
24
3
2023
entrez:
23
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To assess the necessity of prophylactic drain placement in retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephroureterectomy with open distal ureterectomy for upper tract urothelial cancer. Between July 2011 and March 2021, 200 patients with localized clinical Tis-T3 upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma underwent laparoscopic nephroureterectomy with open distal ureterectomy. After removing the specimen, drainage tubes were placed on the renal beds and/or in the retrovesical spaces. Drain tubes were omitted for most patients after 2017. We compared the postoperative outcomes between the patients with drain placement (D+ group) and without drain placement (D- group) using propensity score matching. A total of 164 patients (90 in the D+ group and 74 in the D- group) were enrolled, and matched pairs of 108 patients were analyzed. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications according to Clavien-Dindo grade in the two groups after the propensity score matching. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative lymphocele (n = 5 vs. 9, p = 0.395) and symptomatic lymphocele (n = 1 vs. 1, p = 1) between the two groups. The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the D- group (11 vs. 8 days, p < 0.0001). We found that omitting the drainage tube after laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy did not increase postoperative complications or lymphocele and shortened the post-hospital stay.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
579-584Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Japanese Urological Association.
Références
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69:7-34.
Kenigsberg AP, Meng X, Ghandour R, Margulis V. Oncologic outcomes of radical nephroureterectomy (RNU). Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9:1841-52.
Roupret M, Babjuk M, Burger M, Capoun O, Cohen D, Comperat EM, et al. European Association of Urology guidelines on upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: 2020 update. Eur Urol. 2021;79:62-79.
Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR, Soper NJ, Dierks SM, Meretyk S, Darcy MD, et al. Laparoscopic nephrectomy: initial case report. J Urol. 1991;146:278-82.
Peyronnet B, Seisen T, Dominguez-Escrig JL, Bruins HM, Yuan CY, Lam T, et al. Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic Nephroureterectomy versus open radical Nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: an European Association of Urology guidelines systematic review. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5:205-23.
Nanigian DK, Smith W, Ellison LM. Robot-assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy. J Endourol. 2006;20:463-5. discussion 5-6, 466.
Mullen E, Ahmed K, Challacombe B. Systematic review of open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted nephroureterectomy. Rev Urol. 2017;19:32-43.
Veccia A, Carbonara U, Derweesh I, Mehrazin R, Porter J, Abdollah F, et al. Single-stage xi® robotic radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: surgical technique and outcomes. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2022;74:233-41.
Veccia A, Antonelli A, Francavilla S, Simeone C, Guruli G, Zargar H, et al. Robotic versus other nephroureterectomy techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 87,000 cases. World J Urol. 2020;38:845-52.
Partin AW, Dmochowski RR, Kavoussi LR, Peters CA, Wein A. Campbell-Walsh-Wein Urology. 12th ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V. publish Campbell-Walsh-Wein Urology. 2020. p. 2200.
Dominguez-Escrig JL, Peyronnet B, Seisen T, Bruins HM, Yuan CY, Babjuk M, et al. Potential benefit of lymph node dissection during radical Nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review by the European Association of Urology guidelines panel on non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5:224-41.
Kowalewski KF, Hendrie JD, Nickel F, von Hardenberg J, Nuhn P, Honeck P, et al. Prophylactic abdominal or retroperitoneal drain placement in major uro-oncological surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies on radical prostatectomy, cystectomy and partial nephrectomy. World J Urol. 2020;38:1905-17.
Ni S, Tao W, Chen Q, Liu L, Jiang H, Hu H, et al. Laparoscopic versus open nephroureterectomy for the treatment of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2012;61:1142-53.
Levy A, Canes D. Perioperative complications and adverse sequelae of radical nephroureterectomy. Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9:1853-9.
Lascano D, Pak JS, Kates M, Finkelstein JB, Silva M, Hagen E, et al. Validation of a frailty index in patients undergoing curative surgery for urologic malignancy and comparison with other risk stratification tools. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(426):e1-12.
Veccia A, Carbonara U, Djaladat H, Mehazin R, Eun DD, Reese AC, et al. Robotic vs laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a multicenter propensity-score matched pair “tetrafecta” analysis (ROBUUST collaborative group). J Endourol. 2022;36:752-9.
Hakimi K, Carbonara U, Djaladat H, Mehrazin R, Eun D, Reese A, et al. Outcomes of lymph node dissection in nephroureterectomy in the treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: analysis of the ROBUUST registry. J Urol. 2022;208:268-76.