Laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy

Abstract

Objectives To compare, retrospectively, the results of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) to open partial nephrectomy (OPN) using a tumor size-matched cohort of patients. Limited data are available comparing LPN to OPN in the treatment of small renal tumors. Methods Between September 2000 and September 2003, 27 LPNs and 22 OPNs were performed to treat renal masses less than 4 cm. Patient demographics and tumor location and size (2.4 ± 1.0 cm versus 2.9 ± 0.9 cm, respectively; P = not statistically significant) were similar between the LPN and OPN groups. Results Although the mean operative time was longer in the LPN than in the OPN group (210 ± 76 minutes versus 144 ± 24 minutes; P <0.001), the blood loss was comparable between the two groups (250 ± 250 mL versus 334 ± 343 mL; P = not statistically significant). No blood transfusions were performed in either group. The hospital stay was significantly reduced after LPN compared with after OPN (2.9 ± 1.5 days versus 6.4 ± 1.8 days; P <0.0002), and the postoperative parenteral narcotic requirements were lower in the LPN group (mean morphine equivalent 43 ± 62 mg versus 187 ± 71 mg; P <0.02). Three complications occurred in each group. With LPN, no patient had positive margins or tumor recurrence. Also, direct financial analysis demonstrated lower total hospital costs after LPN ($4839 ± $1551 versus $6297 ± $2972; P <0.05). Conclusions LPN confers several benefits over OPN concerning patient convalescence and costs, despite prolonged resection times at our current phase of the learning curve. Long-term results on cancer control in patients treated with LPN continue to be assessed.