Cargando…

Laparoscopic Exploration in the Management of Retroperitoneal Masses

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The isolated finding of a retroperitoneal mass (RM) often represents a diagnostic challenge. Image-guided biopsy is frequently inadequate for diagnosis. With increasing experience, the use of laparoscopy for exploration of an indeterminate RM may provide a minimally invasi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shalhav, Arieh L., Chan, Steve W.H., Bercowsky, Eduardo, Elbahnassy, Abdelhamid M., McDougall, Elspeth M., Clayman, Ralph V.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 1999
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3113157/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10527333
_version_ 1782205892069949440
author Shalhav, Arieh L.
Chan, Steve W.H.
Bercowsky, Eduardo
Elbahnassy, Abdelhamid M.
McDougall, Elspeth M.
Clayman, Ralph V.
author_facet Shalhav, Arieh L.
Chan, Steve W.H.
Bercowsky, Eduardo
Elbahnassy, Abdelhamid M.
McDougall, Elspeth M.
Clayman, Ralph V.
author_sort Shalhav, Arieh L.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The isolated finding of a retroperitoneal mass (RM) often represents a diagnostic challenge. Image-guided biopsy is frequently inadequate for diagnosis. With increasing experience, the use of laparoscopy for exploration of an indeterminate RM may provide a minimally invasive alternative to open exploration. Herein, we present a retrospective review of our initial four laparoscopic explorations, comparing our experience to four contemporary open explorations for an RM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From July 1995 to January 1998, four patients, aged 50 to 62 years old, with an RM of undetermined etiology underwent laparoscopic exploration. Another four patients underwent open exploration at the same hospital. The medical records of these patients were reviewed. RESULTS: The tumors were smaller in the laparoscopic group, averaging 3.7 cm (range 2-6 cm) vs 6.5 cm (range 1-10 cm) in the open group. A definitive diagnosis was obtained for all eight patients. Postoperative complications were observed in one of the laparoscopic explorations, and in three of the open explorations; there was no operative mortality. The blood loss (90 vs 440 ml), fall in hematocrit (5.1 vs 7.8%), time to resumption of a regular diet (3 vs 5 days), amount of morphine sulfate equivalents required for analgesia (128 mg vs 161 mg), time to ambulation (2.3 vs 6 days) and hospital stay (4.8 vs 6 days) were all less among the laparoscopy patients. However, the operative time was longer for the laparoscopic procedure; this time included stent placement and patient repositioning in addition to the time for laparoscopic excision of the mass (7.8 vs 4.3 hours). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic exploration appears to be a viable alternative to open exploration in patients presenting with a retroperitoneal mass. It is as effective as an open procedure and provides benefits with regard to patient morbidity and convalescence. However, operative time for this laparoscopic procedure is lengthy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3113157
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 1999
publisher Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31131572011-07-12 Laparoscopic Exploration in the Management of Retroperitoneal Masses Shalhav, Arieh L. Chan, Steve W.H. Bercowsky, Eduardo Elbahnassy, Abdelhamid M. McDougall, Elspeth M. Clayman, Ralph V. JSLS Scientific Papers BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The isolated finding of a retroperitoneal mass (RM) often represents a diagnostic challenge. Image-guided biopsy is frequently inadequate for diagnosis. With increasing experience, the use of laparoscopy for exploration of an indeterminate RM may provide a minimally invasive alternative to open exploration. Herein, we present a retrospective review of our initial four laparoscopic explorations, comparing our experience to four contemporary open explorations for an RM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From July 1995 to January 1998, four patients, aged 50 to 62 years old, with an RM of undetermined etiology underwent laparoscopic exploration. Another four patients underwent open exploration at the same hospital. The medical records of these patients were reviewed. RESULTS: The tumors were smaller in the laparoscopic group, averaging 3.7 cm (range 2-6 cm) vs 6.5 cm (range 1-10 cm) in the open group. A definitive diagnosis was obtained for all eight patients. Postoperative complications were observed in one of the laparoscopic explorations, and in three of the open explorations; there was no operative mortality. The blood loss (90 vs 440 ml), fall in hematocrit (5.1 vs 7.8%), time to resumption of a regular diet (3 vs 5 days), amount of morphine sulfate equivalents required for analgesia (128 mg vs 161 mg), time to ambulation (2.3 vs 6 days) and hospital stay (4.8 vs 6 days) were all less among the laparoscopy patients. However, the operative time was longer for the laparoscopic procedure; this time included stent placement and patient repositioning in addition to the time for laparoscopic excision of the mass (7.8 vs 4.3 hours). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic exploration appears to be a viable alternative to open exploration in patients presenting with a retroperitoneal mass. It is as effective as an open procedure and provides benefits with regard to patient morbidity and convalescence. However, operative time for this laparoscopic procedure is lengthy. Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 1999 /pmc/articles/PMC3113157/ /pubmed/10527333 Text en © 1999 by JSLS, Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits for noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not altered in any way.
spellingShingle Scientific Papers
Shalhav, Arieh L.
Chan, Steve W.H.
Bercowsky, Eduardo
Elbahnassy, Abdelhamid M.
McDougall, Elspeth M.
Clayman, Ralph V.
Laparoscopic Exploration in the Management of Retroperitoneal Masses
title Laparoscopic Exploration in the Management of Retroperitoneal Masses
title_full Laparoscopic Exploration in the Management of Retroperitoneal Masses
title_fullStr Laparoscopic Exploration in the Management of Retroperitoneal Masses
title_full_unstemmed Laparoscopic Exploration in the Management of Retroperitoneal Masses
title_short Laparoscopic Exploration in the Management of Retroperitoneal Masses
title_sort laparoscopic exploration in the management of retroperitoneal masses
topic Scientific Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3113157/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10527333
work_keys_str_mv AT shalhavariehl laparoscopicexplorationinthemanagementofretroperitonealmasses
AT chanstevewh laparoscopicexplorationinthemanagementofretroperitonealmasses
AT bercowskyeduardo laparoscopicexplorationinthemanagementofretroperitonealmasses
AT elbahnassyabdelhamidm laparoscopicexplorationinthemanagementofretroperitonealmasses
AT mcdougallelspethm laparoscopicexplorationinthemanagementofretroperitonealmasses
AT claymanralphv laparoscopicexplorationinthemanagementofretroperitonealmasses