Cargando…

Thoracoabdominal Approach for Large Retroperitoneal Masses: Case Series and Review

The thoracoabdominal incision was first described in 1946 as an approach to concomitant abdominal, retroperitoneal, and thoracic injuries. In urology, this technique was popularized in 1949 for the resection of large renal tumours. Today, it is reserved for complex cases where optimal exposure of th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Venkat, Siv, Matteliano, Andre, Drachenberg, Darrel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6431445/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30956837
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/8071025
_version_ 1783405926225543168
author Venkat, Siv
Matteliano, Andre
Drachenberg, Darrel
author_facet Venkat, Siv
Matteliano, Andre
Drachenberg, Darrel
author_sort Venkat, Siv
collection PubMed
description The thoracoabdominal incision was first described in 1946 as an approach to concomitant abdominal, retroperitoneal, and thoracic injuries. In urology, this technique was popularized in 1949 for the resection of large renal tumours. Today, it is reserved for complex cases where optimal exposure of the renal hilum and adrenal and superior pole of the kidney is necessary. We present four consecutive cases in which this approach was taken by a single surgeon at our tertiary surgical centre. The outcomes, postoperative course, and pathology are described. We provide a comprehensive literature review and outline the indications, advantages, and disadvantages of this approach. Objectives. To present a case series outlining the efficacy and safety of the thoracoabdominal incision in complex oncologic procedures in urology. Methods. Four cases utilizing the thoracoabdominal incision, performed by a single surgeon at our tertiary care center, were reviewed. Case history, preoperative imaging, intraoperative experience, postoperative course, final pathology, and complications were examined. A thorough literature review was performed and comparison made with historical cohorts for estimated blood loss, length of stay, and complications encountered versus other common surgical approaches. The indications, advantages, and disadvantages of the thoracoabdominal approach were outlined. Results. All patients had large retroperitoneal masses of varying complexity, requiring maximal surgical exposure. Surgery was straightforward in all cases, without any significant perioperative or postoperative complications. Postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, and analgesia requirements were all similar to open and mini-flank approaches in review of historical case series cohorts. Laparoscopic approaches had lower estimated blood loss and length of stay. Conclusions. The thoracoabdominal approach is rarely utilized in urological surgery, due to the perceived morbidity in violating the thoracic cavity. These cases outline the benefit of the thoracoabdominal approach in select cases requiring maximal surgical exposure, and the generally benign postoperative course that appropriately selected patients may hope to endure. Postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, and analgesia requirements can be expected to be similar open and mini-flank approaches. As expected, laparoscopic approaches had lower estimated blood loss and length of stay.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6431445
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64314452019-04-07 Thoracoabdominal Approach for Large Retroperitoneal Masses: Case Series and Review Venkat, Siv Matteliano, Andre Drachenberg, Darrel Case Rep Urol Case Report The thoracoabdominal incision was first described in 1946 as an approach to concomitant abdominal, retroperitoneal, and thoracic injuries. In urology, this technique was popularized in 1949 for the resection of large renal tumours. Today, it is reserved for complex cases where optimal exposure of the renal hilum and adrenal and superior pole of the kidney is necessary. We present four consecutive cases in which this approach was taken by a single surgeon at our tertiary surgical centre. The outcomes, postoperative course, and pathology are described. We provide a comprehensive literature review and outline the indications, advantages, and disadvantages of this approach. Objectives. To present a case series outlining the efficacy and safety of the thoracoabdominal incision in complex oncologic procedures in urology. Methods. Four cases utilizing the thoracoabdominal incision, performed by a single surgeon at our tertiary care center, were reviewed. Case history, preoperative imaging, intraoperative experience, postoperative course, final pathology, and complications were examined. A thorough literature review was performed and comparison made with historical cohorts for estimated blood loss, length of stay, and complications encountered versus other common surgical approaches. The indications, advantages, and disadvantages of the thoracoabdominal approach were outlined. Results. All patients had large retroperitoneal masses of varying complexity, requiring maximal surgical exposure. Surgery was straightforward in all cases, without any significant perioperative or postoperative complications. Postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, and analgesia requirements were all similar to open and mini-flank approaches in review of historical case series cohorts. Laparoscopic approaches had lower estimated blood loss and length of stay. Conclusions. The thoracoabdominal approach is rarely utilized in urological surgery, due to the perceived morbidity in violating the thoracic cavity. These cases outline the benefit of the thoracoabdominal approach in select cases requiring maximal surgical exposure, and the generally benign postoperative course that appropriately selected patients may hope to endure. Postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, and analgesia requirements can be expected to be similar open and mini-flank approaches. As expected, laparoscopic approaches had lower estimated blood loss and length of stay. Hindawi 2019-03-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6431445/ /pubmed/30956837 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/8071025 Text en Copyright © 2019 Siv Venkat et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Case Report
Venkat, Siv
Matteliano, Andre
Drachenberg, Darrel
Thoracoabdominal Approach for Large Retroperitoneal Masses: Case Series and Review
title Thoracoabdominal Approach for Large Retroperitoneal Masses: Case Series and Review
title_full Thoracoabdominal Approach for Large Retroperitoneal Masses: Case Series and Review
title_fullStr Thoracoabdominal Approach for Large Retroperitoneal Masses: Case Series and Review
title_full_unstemmed Thoracoabdominal Approach for Large Retroperitoneal Masses: Case Series and Review
title_short Thoracoabdominal Approach for Large Retroperitoneal Masses: Case Series and Review
title_sort thoracoabdominal approach for large retroperitoneal masses: case series and review
topic Case Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6431445/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30956837
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/8071025
work_keys_str_mv AT venkatsiv thoracoabdominalapproachforlargeretroperitonealmassescaseseriesandreview
AT mattelianoandre thoracoabdominalapproachforlargeretroperitonealmassescaseseriesandreview
AT drachenbergdarrel thoracoabdominalapproachforlargeretroperitonealmassescaseseriesandreview