841 PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL OF CONVENTIONAL LAPAROSCOPIC VERSUS LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SINGLE-SITE RADICAL NEPHRECTOMY FOR LOCALIZED RENAL CELL CARCINOMA: REPORT OF PRELIMINARY DATA

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyTechnology & Instruments: Laparoscopy - Malignant Disease1 Apr 2012841 PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL OF CONVENTIONAL LAPAROSCOPIC VERSUS LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SINGLE-SITE RADICAL NEPHRECTOMY FOR LOCALIZED RENAL CELL CARCINOMA: REPORT OF PRELIMINARY DATA Yong Hyun Park, Hyeon-Jun Kim, Min Soo Choo, Kyung Don Baik, and Hyeon Hoe Kim Yong Hyun ParkYong Hyun Park Seoul, Korea, Republic of More articles by this author , Hyeon-Jun KimHyeon-Jun Kim Seoul, Korea, Republic of More articles by this author , Min Soo ChooMin Soo Choo Seoul, Korea, Republic of More articles by this author , Kyung Don BaikKyung Don Baik Seoul, Korea, Republic of More articles by this author , and Hyeon Hoe KimHyeon Hoe Kim Seoul, Korea, Republic of More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.933AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The safety and efficacy of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has not been clearly demonstrated. We aimed to present preliminary data from a prospective randomized controlled trial of LESS versus conventional laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (CLS) for localized RCC. METHODS From October 2010 to August 2011, a prospective, randomized pilot trial was performed to compare conventional laparoscopic (n=10) and LESS radical nephrectomy (n=10) in patients with clinically localized RCC. Short-term outcomes assessed were perioperative morbidity, postoperative pain, and quality of recovery measured by QoR-40. RESULTS No significant differences were observed in operative time (128.6 vs. 117.2 min, p=0.689), blood loss (95.0 vs. 80.5 ml, p=0.280), hospital stay (3.4 vs. 2.4 days, p=0.202), analgesics requirement (84.4 vs. 65.0 mg, p=0.747), and complication rate (37.5 vs. 30.0 %, p=1.000) between the LESS and CLS groups. Postoperative pain at postoperative day 1 (5.1 vs. 5.3 points, p=0.464), 2 (4.2 vs. 4.2 points, p=0.705), and 3 (3.6 vs. 3.5 points, p=1.000) was not significantly different between two groups. However, postoperative quality of recovery measured by QoR-40 scores was higher in the LESS group compared with the CLS group (173 vs. 146, p=0.037). In the LESS group, improved QoR was observed in the QoR-40 dimensions of emotional state (39.8 vs. 31.1, p=0.007), and pain (31.5 vs. 26.1, p=0.012), but, not in physical comfort (50.9 vs. 44.3, p=0.162), psychological support (31.4 vs. 26.6, p=0.061), and physical independence (19.9 vs. 17.7, p=0.448). CONCLUSIONS Preliminary results from this prospective trial showed that LESS could be a safe and effective treatment option for localized RCC with equivalent surgical outcomes and improved postoperative quality of life compared with CLS. © 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4SApril 2012Page: e343 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Yong Hyun Park Seoul, Korea, Republic of More articles by this author Hyeon-Jun Kim Seoul, Korea, Republic of More articles by this author Min Soo Choo Seoul, Korea, Republic of More articles by this author Kyung Don Baik Seoul, Korea, Republic of More articles by this author Hyeon Hoe Kim Seoul, Korea, Republic of More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...