Urology · 2002
Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: description of the nerve-sparing technique.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Peschel Reinhard, Gettman Matthew T, Neururer Richard, Hobisch Alfred, Bartsch Georg
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) is associated with a more favorable postoperative recovery and decreased morbidity compared with open RPLND. To date, laparoscopic RPLND is used as a diagnostic tool for patients with clinical Stage I nonseminomatous germ cell tumor and as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool for patients with low-volume Stage II nonseminomatous germ cell tumor after chemotherapy. In an effort to further expand the therapeutic implications for laparoscopic RPLND, we describe a nerve-sparing technique for laparoscopic RPLND.
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS: In all cases, a four-port transperitoneal approach was used to perform a unilateral nerve-sparing technique. Laparoscopic nerve-sparing RPLND requires complete exposure of the retroperitoneum, similar to the standard procedure. A stepwise surgical approach is required for prospective identification of the sympathetic trunk and postganglionic nerve fibers. Identification and division of the lumbar veins is required for complete mobilization of the vena cava to facilitate dissection of the postganglionic nerves on the right side as they course dorsal to the vena cava. Meticulous dissection was required for preservation of the postganglionic nerves in the interaortocaval and para-aortic regions.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic nerve-sparing RPLND is technically feasible. Performance of laparoscopic nerve-sparing RPLND decreases the potential morbidity associated with the standard laparoscopic technique further and may help expand the therapeutic potential for this minimally invasive procedure.
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS: In all cases, a four-port transperitoneal approach was used to perform a unilateral nerve-sparing technique. Laparoscopic nerve-sparing RPLND requires complete exposure of the retroperitoneum, similar to the standard procedure. A stepwise surgical approach is required for prospective identification of the sympathetic trunk and postganglionic nerve fibers. Identification and division of the lumbar veins is required for complete mobilization of the vena cava to facilitate dissection of the postganglionic nerves on the right side as they course dorsal to the vena cava. Meticulous dissection was required for preservation of the postganglionic nerves in the interaortocaval and para-aortic regions.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic nerve-sparing RPLND is technically feasible. Performance of laparoscopic nerve-sparing RPLND decreases the potential morbidity associated with the standard laparoscopic technique further and may help expand the therapeutic potential for this minimally invasive procedure.