中国医科大学学报  2018, Vol. 47 Issue (6): 562-565

文章信息

刘碧天, 吴斌
LIU Bitian, WU Bin
非阻断技术在腹腔镜免缝合肾部分切除术中的应用
Off-clamp Technique for Laparoscopic Sutureless Partial Nephrectomy
中国医科大学学报, 2018, 47(6): 562-565
Journal of China Medical University, 2018, 47(6): 562-565

文章历史

收稿日期:2017-08-17
网络出版时间:2018-05-21 14:43
非阻断技术在腹腔镜免缝合肾部分切除术中的应用
刘碧天 , 吴斌     
中国医科大学附属盛京医院泌尿外科, 沈阳 110004
摘要目的 探讨术中非阻断肾蒂在腹腔镜免缝合肾部分切除术中的安全性及有效性。方法 总结分析2016年2月至2017年4月中国医科大学附属盛京医院泌尿外科收治并由同一术者连续完成的88个病例,术前均怀疑单侧肾脏恶性肿瘤(非孤立肾),筛选出肿瘤直径>2 cm的病例58例,其中非阻断组26例,阻断组32例。2组患者的年龄、男/女比例、肿瘤左/右侧比例、肿瘤最大径、术前肾小球滤过率估计值(eGFR)和RENAL评分等比较,差异均无统计学意义。结果 非阻断组与阻断组术中出血量(193.1 mLvs 190.0 mL,P=0.957)无统计学差异,手术时间(131.3 min vs 181.2 min,P < 0.001)、术后短期eGFR降低[0.4 mL/(min·1.73 m2)vs 8.0 mL/(min·1.73 m2),P=0.034],3~6个月eGFR降低[2.1 mL/(min·1.73 m2)vs 7.8 mL/(min·1.73 m2),P=0.154]和术后住院时间(10.5 d vs 14.9 d,P=0.005),有统计学差异。结论 非阻断肾蒂在腹腔镜下免缝合肾部分切除术中是安全、有效的。非阻断肾蒂没有增加术中出血量,对于术后短期肾功能的损伤较小,可以明显缩短手术时间与术后住院时间。
关键词肾部分切除术    腹腔镜    非阻断    免缝合    
Off-clamp Technique for Laparoscopic Sutureless Partial Nephrectomy
LIU Bitian , WU Bin     
Department of Urology, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang 110004, China
Abstract: Objective To evaluate the safety and efficacy of off-clamp in sutureless laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Methods From February 2016 to April 2017, 88 cases were analyzed. According to the results, before surgery, all the cases were suspected as unilateral kidney cancer(non-isolated kidney). The screening identified 58 cases of tumor with a diameter of > 2 cm, including 26 cases in the off-clamp group and 32 in the clamp group. No significant differences were found between the off-clamp and clamp groups in terms of patient age and sex, tumor location and size, preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate(eGFR), and RENAL score. Results No significant difference in intraoperative blood loss was observed between the off-clamp and clamp groups(193.1 mL vs 190.0 mL, P=0.957). However, the operation time(131.3 min vs 181.2 min, P < 0.001) and postoperative hospital stay(10.5 d vs 14.9 d, P=0.005) were shorter in the off-clamp group. Short-term(1 week after operation) eGFR reduction showed significant differences between the groups[0.4 mL/(min·1.73 m2) vs 8.0 mL/(min·1.73 m2), respectively; P=0.034]. At 3-6 months after operation, the decrease in eGFR also showed no significant difference between the groups[2.1 mL/(min·1.73 m2) vs 7.8 mL/(min·1.73 m2), P=0.034]. Conclusion Off-clamp is safe and effective in sutureless laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. In this study, off-clamp renal pedicle did not increase the amount of intraoperative blood loss, reduced short-term damage to renal function, and significantly shortened the operation time and postoperative hospital stay. However, a large sample study and long-term follow-up observation are still needed to clarify its long-term efficacy.
Keywords: partial nephrectomy    laparoscopic    off-clamp    sutureless    

肾癌占所有恶性肿瘤的2%~3%,在过去的20年里,全球的肾癌发病率增加了2%。随着超声和CT的普及,越来越多早期小肾癌在体检时被发现。腹腔镜技术与机器人技术成为当下肾癌手术治疗的主流,使得保留肾单位手术的适应证范围不像以往那样局限。保留肾单位手术在肾癌治疗中也逐渐被广泛使用。腹腔镜肾部分切除免缝合技术是一种全新的肾部分切除术,吴斌等[1]使用这种手术方式已经为数十例患者治疗,并证实其可行与安全性。术中不阻断肾蒂也是首次使用在这种术式之中,本研究旨在探讨非阻断在腹腔镜免缝合肾部分切除术中的应用及其与阻断的比较。

1 材料与方法 1.1 病历资料

回顾2016年2月至2017年4月在中国医科大学附属盛京医院泌尿外科,由同一术者连续完成的88例患者,术前根据影像资料均诊断肾脏恶性肿瘤可能,无进展及转移征象,全部接受腹腔镜免缝合肾部分切除术。肿瘤直径(2.9±1.3)cm,RENAL评分(6.6±1.6)分,阻断肾蒂49例(阻断组),非阻断39例(非阻断组)。

1.2 手术方法

经腹腔或者经后腹膜途径,斜侧卧位,利用3或4个穿刺孔完成手术。首先进入腹膜后空间,通过打开Gerota’s筋膜和清除肾周脂肪来确定肿瘤位置以及大小。肾蒂需要阻断的病例,分离肾蒂血管进行肾动静脉阻断,肾脏肿瘤床免缝合处理后解除肾蒂阻断。未阻断病例,肾蒂血管不需要分离。使用单极电凝钩对肾肿瘤周围的肾实质标记。肿瘤切除通过剪刀进行锐性分离和吸引器钝性分离互相配合,避免热损伤而导致层面视野不清晰。若出现明显的出血,肿物切除后用单极电凝钩电凝止血。在肿瘤床应用单极电凝钩反复60 W电凝配合喷凝100 W止血。若电凝处理后有渗血,使用生物胶(α-氰基丙烯酸正丁酯)辅助止血。如果仍有渗血,可继续电凝止血。止血完成后,在肿瘤床旁留置引流管,切除肿瘤并通过取物袋取出。

1.3 随访

术后随访3~16个月,每3~6个月复查1次,复查内容为肾脏平扫CT或者泌尿系超声、血常规及肝肾功能。

1.4 统计学分析

采用SPSS 21.0统计软件处理数据。符合正态分布的计量资料数据,均以x±s表示,比较采用两独立样本的t检验,不符合正态分布的计量资料数据以中位数和四分位数间距(inter-quartile range,IQR)表示,比较采用非参数检验。计数资料采用χ2检验。P < 0.05为差异有统计学意义。

2 结果 2.1 肿瘤直径 > 2 cm病例相关数据结果

非阻断组与阻断组肿瘤直径有统计学差异(2.5 cm vs 3.4 cm,P = 0.002),筛选肿瘤直径 > 2cm的病例共58例,非阻断组26例,阻断组32例。筛选后的非阻断组与阻断组肿瘤直径(3.4 cm vs 3.7 cm,P = 0.290)、年龄(53.0岁vs 54.6岁,P = 0.641)、男/女比例(19/7 vs 22/10,P = 0.719)、肿瘤左/右侧比例(12/14 vs 18/14,P = 0.444)、术前肾小球滤过率估计值[estimated glomerular filtration rate,eGFR,105.6 mL/(min·1.73 m2)vs 105.5 mL /(min·1.73 m2),P = 0.993]、RENAL评分(6.5 vs 6.9,P = 0.359)等比较,差异均无统计学意义。见表 1

表 1 肿瘤直径 > 2 cm病例中非阻断组与阻断组术前肿瘤特征对比 Tab.1 Comparison of preoperative characteristics of patients with renal tumors with diameter > 2 cm in off-clamp group and on-clamp group
Variable Off-clamp group On-clamp group P
Gender(male/female) 19/7 22/10 0.719
Left/right 12/14 18/14 0.444
Age(year) 53.0±15.2 54.6±10.7 0.641
Tumor size(cm) 3.4±1.0 3.7±1.2 0.290
RENAL score 6.5±1.4 6.9±1.6 0.359
Preoperative eGFR [mL/(min·1.73 m2)] 105.6±44.1 105.5±29.2 0.993
Tumor complexity(n 0.869
  Low 13 14
  Intermediate 12 17
  High 1 1

肿瘤直径 > 2 cm的58例患者中,非阻断组26例,阻断组32例。2组术中出血量(193.1 mL vs 190.0 mL,P = 0.957),手术时间(131.3 min vs 181.2 min,P < 0.001)。术后1周内eGFR降低[0.4 mL/(min·1.73 m2)vs 8.0 mL/(min·1.73 m2),P = 0.034],其中5例未复查肾功能,非阻断组3例,阻断组2例,已排除。术后3~6个月eGFR降低[2.1 mL/(min·1.73 m2)vs 7.8 mL/(min·1.73 m2),P = 0.154],其中4例未复查肾功能,非阻断组2例,阻断组2例,已排除。手术时间与术中出血排除2例,同时切胆囊1例与胃肿物1例。术中输血(2例vs 3例,P = 1.000),术后出血(0例vs 2例,P = 0.494),术后尿漏(1例vs 2例,P = 1.000)。见表 2

表 2 肿瘤直径 > 2 cm病例中非阻断组与阻断组术中与术后相关数据对比 Tab.2 Comparison of intraoperative and postoperative data of patients with renal tumors with diameter > 2 cm in off-clamp group and on-clamp group
Variable Off-clamp group On-clamp group P
Postoperative reduction in eGFR within a week [mL/(min·1.73 m2)] 0.4(-10.3-9.2) 8.0(-4.9-20.1) 0.034
Postoperative reduction in eGFR between 3-6 months [mL/(min·1.73 m2)] 2.1±10.9 7.8±16.9 0.154
EBL(mL) 193.1±242.0 190.0±184.4 0.957
Operating time(min) 131.3±38.9 181.2±52.0 < 0.001
WIT(min) - 24.97±6.15
Postoperative hospitalization(d) 10.5±4.8 14.9±6.2 0.005
Introperative blood transfusion(n 2 3 1.000
Postoperative bleeding(n 0 2 0.494
Postoperative drain leakage(n 1 2 1.000
EBL,estimated blood loss;WIT,warm ischemia time.

2.2 88例患者术中及术后结果

术中输血6例(阻断组3例,非阻断组3例),术后尿漏3例(阻断组2例,非阻断组1例)。术后肾脏出血2例(均为阻断组),行介入选择性肾动脉栓塞术,1例栓塞效果不佳,行开刀肾缝合术。病理检查结果显示,透明细胞癌76例(86.4%,其中1例合并嫌色细胞癌),乳头状肾细胞癌6例(6.8%),上皮样血管平滑肌脂肪瘤4例(4.5%),其他2例(2.3%)。88例患者术中平均出血量为(152.1±187.4)mL,手术时间为(148.5±51.7)min,术后短期(1周)eGFR降低值为(4.8±20.6)mL/(min·1.73 m2)。所有患者均顺利出院,术后随访3~16个月,随访期间无肿瘤复发和转移病例。

3 讨论

在局限性肾癌中,肾部分切除术同根治性肾切除术有相同的肿瘤控制效果[2],但是肾部分切除术对于患者的远期生存率有着明显的改善和提高[3]。保留足够多的肾脏正常组织是维护术后肾脏功能的基础,减少热缺血时间也同样重要,对于术后肾脏功能的保护与维持有协同作用[4]。较长的热缺血时间对于术后短期或者长期的肾功能损伤有着必然联系[5]。即使术前术后总的肾功能几乎不受影响,但是≥25 min的热缺血会引起术侧肾脏不可逆的弥漫性损伤[6]。本研究中阻断组平均热缺血时间是24.97 min,这于肾部分切除术并不算长。为了消除缺血再灌注,越来越多的术者在肾部分切除术中尝试通过不阻断肾蒂来保护术侧肾脏功能[7-9]

阻断肾蒂在肾部分切除中使用广泛,完全非阻断目前应用较少,1个国际大型研究[10]统计显示,复杂肾肿瘤(RENAL评分 > 6分)接受肾部分切除术时75.1%选择肾蒂阻断。SHAO等[11]与BOROFSKY等[12]证实了选择性肾动脉阻断在肾部分切除术中的可行性,不过都需要先进的影像辅助技术来支持。

腹腔镜非阻断肾部分切除术是安全可行的,特别适用于局限性小肾癌的治疗[7-8]。腹腔镜免缝合肾部分切术更是一项新的技术,吴斌等[1]证实了它的可行有效性。非阻断是首次在这种新术式中使用,证实了非阻断在腹腔镜免缝合肾部分切除术中的可行性。术后短期eGFR[13]非阻断组较阻断组降低较少。一项回顾性研究[14]发现,非阻断肾部分切除术在术后6个月内肾功能损伤小于阻断手术,但在长达5年的随访中,消除短暂热缺血的非阻断肾部分切除术同阻断组相比,并未带来明显的临床益处。在本研究中的3~6个月的肾功能复查结果中无法观测到2组之间的差异,或许免缝合技术在这样的时间区间上肾功能的恢复比传统肾部分切除术更具优势。可以肯定的是阻断肾蒂给肾脏带来缺血再灌注损伤[15],即使总的肾脏功能不受影响,可是对于伴有肾脏功能损伤的患者(比如孤立肾或者双侧肾脏萎缩的患者),无疑是一个影响未来生活质量的巨大危险因素。

RENAL评分可以预测肾部分切除术的复杂难易程度,对于选择开刀或者腔镜手术、根治性肾切除术或者肾部分切除术有辅助作用。ROUSHIAS等[16]报道RENAL评分与开刀和腹腔镜手术的相关性,开刀与腹腔镜肾部分切除术RENAL评分均值分别为7.5和6.2,热缺血时间在开刀手术中与RENAL评分相关,术中失血量在腹腔镜手术中与RENAL评分相关。在本研究中腹腔镜免缝合肾部分切除术的RENAL评分是(6.6±1.6)分,可以肯定免缝合技术的实用性并未受到肿瘤复杂程度的限制。

综上所述,腹腔镜下使用非阻断的免缝合肾部分切除术是安全有效的,适用于T1a期或者RENAL评分4~6分的肾脏肿瘤,部分大于T1b期或者RENAL评分7~9分的肾脏肿瘤也可以选择使用。在选择阻断或者非阻断时,推荐行非阻断免缝合肾部分切除术。非阻断对于术后短期肾功能维护有益处,可以明显缩短手术时间与术后住院时间。但尚需大样本研究及长时间随访观察明确其远期疗效。

参考文献
[1]
吴斌, 张峰. 单极电凝免缝合技术在腹腔镜肾部分切除术中初步应用[J]. 中华医学杂志, 2016, 96(48): 3885-3887. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.0376-2491.2016.48.007
[2]
SONG E, MA X, AN R, et al. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for tumors larger than 7 cm in renal cell carcinoma:initial experience of single-institution[J]. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2017, 27(11): 1127-1131. DOI:10.1089/lap.2016.0668
[3]
TAN HJ, NORTON EC, YE Z, et al. Long-term survival following partial vs radical nephrectomy among older patients with early-stage kidney cancer[J]. JAMA, 2012, 307(15): 1629-1635. DOI:10.1001/jama.2012.475
[4]
DAGENAIS J, MAURICE M, MOURACADE P, et al. The synergistic influence of ischemic time and surgical precision on acute kidney injury after robotic partial nephrectomy[J]. Urology, 2017, 107: 132-137. DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2017.03.002
[5]
THOMPSON RH, LANE BR, LOHSE CM, et al. Every minute counts when the renal hilum is clamped during partial nephrectomy[J]. Eur Urol, 2010, 58(3): 340-345. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2010.05.047
[6]
FUNAHASHI Y, HATTORI R, YAMAMOTO T, et al. Ischemic renal damage after nephron-sparing surgery in patients with normal contralateral kidney[J]. Eur Urol, 2009, 55(1): 209-215. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.07.048
[7]
BOYARSKY L, STEIN A, KONSTANTINOVSKY A, et al. Retrospective analysis of laparoscopic partial nephrectomies using the zero ischemia technique[J]. Urol Int, 2017, 99(3): 257-261. DOI:10.1159/000454989
[8]
BROWNE C, LONERGAN PE, BOLTON EM, et al. A single centre experience of zero-ischaemia laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in Ireland[J]. Ir J Med Sci, 2017, 186(4): 1023-1026. DOI:10.1007/s11845-017-1562-7
[9]
SPRINGER C, VENEZIANO D, WIMPISSINGER F, et al. Clampless laparoendoscopic single-site partial nephrectomy for renal cancer with low PADUA score:technique and surgical outcomes[J]. BJU Int, 2013, 111(7): 1091-1098. DOI:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11601.x
[10]
LIEBERMAN L, BAROD R, DALELA D, et al. Use of Main renal artery clamping predominates over minimal clamping techniques during robotic partial nephrectomy for complex tumors[J]. J Endourol, 2017, 31(2): 149-152. DOI:10.1089/end.2016.0678
[11]
SHAO P, TANG L, LI P, et al. Precise segmental renal artery clamping under the guidance of dual-source computed tomography angiography during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy[J]. Eur Urol, 2012, 62(6): 1001-1008. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.056
[12]
BOROFSKY MS, GILL IS, HEMAL AK, et al. Near-infrared fluorescence imaging to facilitate super-selective arterial clamping during zero-ischaemia robotic partial nephrectomy[J]. BJU Int, 2013, 111(4): 604-610. DOI:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11490.x
[13]
MA YC, ZUO L, CHEN JH, et al. Modified glomerular filtration rate estimating equation for Chinese patients with chronic kidney disease[J]. J Am Soc Nephrol, 2006, 17(10): 2937-2944. DOI:10.1681/asn.2006040368
[14]
SHAH PH, GEORGE AK, MOREIRA DM, et al. To clamp or not to clamp? Long-term functional outcomes for elective off-clamp laparoscopic partial nephrectomy[J]. BJU Int, 2016, 117(2): 293-299. DOI:10.1111/bju.13309
[15]
ZHANG Z, ZHAO J, DONG W, et al. Acute kidney injury after partial nephrectomy:role of parenchymal mass reduction and ischemia and impact on subsequent functional recovery[J]. Eur Urol, 2016, 69(4): 745-752. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.023
[16]
ROUSHIAS S, VASDEV N, GANAI B, et al. Can the R.e.N.a.L nephrometry score preoperatively predict postoperative clinical outcomes in patients undergoing open and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy?[J]. Curr Urol, 2013, 7(2): 90-97. DOI:10.1159/000356255