4.4 Article

Hybrid Transureteral Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Nephrectomy: A Feasibility Study in the Porcine Model

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 2, Pages 245-250

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/end.2010.0311

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Purpose: Natural orifice approaches for nephrectomy have included access via the stomach, vagina, bladder, and rectum. The use of the ureter as a natural orifice for natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) nephrectomy has not been previously reported. The purpose of this study is to test the feasibility of transureteral laparoscopic NOTES nephrectomy. Materials and Methods: Three female farm pigs (29.2-30.8 kg) were placed into the lithotomy position. A cystoscopically placed extra-stiff guidewire was used to place a prototype dilating sheath into the left ureter. After dilation of the ureter and urethra, the sheath was exchanged for a 12-mm bariatric laparoscopic trocar. A 10.5-inch long 10-mm offset operating laparoscope with an internal 5-mm working port was used for the nephrectomy. One 2-mm and one 2/3-mm port were placed transabdominally to facilitate in situ morcellation. The kidney was cut into slices using the bipolar device and extracted via the ureteral port using the housing of a 12-mm bariatric stapling device. Results: All three transureteral nephrectomies were successfully completed. The total mean operative time was 220 minutes (range 113-346 min). Component portions of the procedure were: Ureteral access (mean 21 min), nephrectomy (mean 70 min), and kidney morcellation (mean 103 min). Mean estimated blood loss was 20 mL (range 5-50 mL). There were no intraoperative complications. Conclusions: This nonsurvival porcine feasibility study demonstrates the successful performance of transureteral nephrectomy. This approach shows promise as a way to decrease the invasiveness of NOTES nephrectomy by using the ureteral orifice as an access site.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available