OBJECTIVE: To examine the feasibility of TV-NOSE in live donor nephrectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 53 patients received LDN surgery at our hospital from September 2017 to December 2021. Retrospectively, living donor nephrectomy with TV-NOSE was compared to three different surgical procedures with standard specimen extraction.
RESULTS: 53 donor patients were included: 15 open (OLDN), 12 retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy (RPLDN), 10 transperitoneal living donor nephrectomy (TPLDN), and 16 standard laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy with transvaginal extraction (SLLDN TV-NOSE). SLLDN TVNOSE's longer operating time (p<0.0041) did not affect graft function. SLLDN TV-NOSE and RPLDN had shorter lengths of stay and better VAS trends than open LDN and TPLDN (p<0.05). SLLDN TV-NOSE donors reported acceptable surgical outcomes and unchanged sexual function. All patients had similar discharge creatinine levels, with 1-year transplant survival of 98% and just 1 graft loss in the TPLDN group.
CONCLUSION: SLLDN TV-NOSE is equivalent to RPLDN and better than open LDN and TPLDN in terms of duration of stay, VAS score, surgical outcomes, and sexual function. TVNOSE is a safe surgical procedure with an acceptable donor complication. TV-NOSE may be safely conducted in both developed and developing countries with proper patient selection.
METHODS: We retro-spectively reviewed all TP nephrectomies performed in the Hospital Sultanah Bahiyah Alor Setar, Kedah between January 2016 and July 2017.
RESULTS: A total of 36 eligible cases were identified, 10 of which were for renal tumours and the others for nonfunctioning kidneys. There were no statistically significant differ-ences between the two groups in terms of demographics and comorbidities. We also did not identify any sta-tistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of operating time, blood loss, need for transfusion, septic complications and postoperative recovery. The only significant difference between the groups was the postoperative rise in serum creatinine, which was higher in the tumour disease group (mean rise 23.4 vs 5.35µmol/l; p = 0.012).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that laparoscopic nephrectomy is both feasible and safe for the treatment of tumour and non-tumour renal disease with low complication rates in both groups.
CASE PRESENTATION: A 64-year-old Indian male with a past history of coronary artery bypass graft surgery, congestive heart failure, and diabetes mellitus complained of worsening shortness of breath for 2 weeks. Incidentally, a transthoracic echocardiography showed a "thumb-like" mass in his right atrium extending into his right ventricle through the tricuspid valve with each systole. Abdomen magnetic resonance imaging revealed a heterogenous lobulated mass in the upper and mid-pole of his right kidney with a tumor extending into his inferior vena cava and right atrium, consistent with our diagnosis of advanced renal cell carcinoma which was later confirmed by surgical excision and histology. Radical right nephrectomy, lymph nodes clearance, inferior vena cava cavatomy, and complete tumor thrombectomy were performed successfully. Perioperatively, he did not require cardiopulmonary bypass or deep hypothermic circulatory arrest. He had no recurrence during the follow-up period for more than 2 years after surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Advanced extension of renal cell carcinoma can occur with no apparent symptoms and be detected incidentally. In rare circumstances, atypical presentation of renal cell carcinoma should be considered in a patient presenting with right atrial mass detected by echocardiography. Renal cell carcinoma with inferior vena cava and right atrium extension is a complex surgical challenge, but excellent results can be obtained with proper patient selection, meticulous surgical techniques, and close perioperative patient care.