4.4 Article

Laparoscopic renal cryoablation in 32 patients

Journal

UROLOGY
Volume 56, Issue 5, Pages 748-753

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00752-4

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. Laparoscopic renal cryoablation is a developmental minimally invasive nephron-sparing treatment alternative for highly select patients with small renal tumors. We present our evolving experience with this procedure. Methods. Thirty-two patients (34 tumors) with a mean tumor size of 2.3 cm on preoperative computed tomography underwent laparoscopic renal cryoablation. As dictated by the tumor location, cryoablation was performed by either the retroperitoneal (n = 22) or the transperitoneal (n = 10) laparoscopic approach using real-time ultrasound monitoring. A double freeze-thaw cycle was routinely performed. Results. The mean surgical time was 2.9 hours, cryoablation time 15.1 minutes, and blood loss 66.8 mt. For a mean intraoperative ultrasonographic tumor size of 2 cm, the mean cryolesion size was 3.2 cm. The hospital stay was less than 23 hours in 22 (69%) of 32 patients. Sequential magnetic resonance imaging scans demonstrated a gradual contraction in the mean diameter of the cryolesions. Of the 20 patients who underwent a 1-year follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scan, the cryoablated tumor was no longer visible in 5. Of note, 23 patients have now undergone a 3 to 6-month follow-up computed tomography-directed biopsy of the cryoablated tumor site; the biopsy was negative for cancer in all 23 patients. No evidence of local or port-site recurrence was found during a mean follow-up of 16.2 months. Conclusions. Critical long-term data regarding laparoscopic renal cryoablation, a developmental technique, are awaited. However, our initial experience is cautiously optimistic. Despite its significant potential for false-negative results, it is encouraging that the follow-up computed tomography-directed needle biopsies at 3 to 6 months were negative for cancer in 23 of 23 patients. UROLOGY 56: 748-753, 2000, (C) 2000, Elsevier Science Inc.

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