Initial satisfying experience of total retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy: a retrospective comparative research.

Background: Radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) is the principal method for treatment of high-risk upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). The transperitoneal approach is associated with poor disease progression, but the distal ureter-bladder cuff (DUBC) resection through retroperitoneal laparoscopic approach is difficult. This study proposed a modulated RNU technique, namely, total retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy (tRLRNU), with its advantages of DUBC resection and requiring fewer trocars etc. The efficiency, safety, and short-term impacts were retrospectively compared with total transperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy (tTLRNU).

Methods: Total of 12 patients who received tRLRNU and 28 patients who received tTLRNU were enrolled. The choice of surgical approach was random and their data were retrospectively analyzed. During tRLRNU, the laparoscope was versed towards the caudal direction and a retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterectomy was performed. The bladder cuff was entirely transected and the bladder incision was sutured. The tRLRNU cases were compared with the tTLRNU cases in terms of general clinical data, pathologic parameters, peri-operative parameters, adjuvant therapy, and short-term outcomes. The independent samples -tests, chi-square tests, and Fischer exact tests were used to analyze the differences.

Results: There were no significant differences in the basic patient characteristics between the 2 groups. The data were comparable. There were significantly fewer trocars utilized in tRLRNU group compared to tTLRNU group (P=0.0008). tRLRNU group experienced less blood loss (98.33±61.32 versus 170.71±121.32 mL; P=0.017), smaller drainage volume (182.08±163.60 versus 1,924.82±3,370.02 mL; P=0.011), and shorter extubation time (5.67±1.07 versus 8.57±6.96 days; P=0.040) compared to tRLRNU group. There were no statistically differences in the other peri-operative parameters, including whole operation time, transfusion, visceral and vascular injuries, open conversion, post-operative bleeding, recovery time of intestinal function, and discharge time. The patient outcomes in tTLRNU group at 6 months were significantly worse than that of tRLRNU group by comparing progression-free survival, progression survival and mortality (P=0.039).

Conclusions: The tRLRNU was potentially safer, minimally invasive, and more effective compared to the tTLRNU. Due to the small sample size, short follow-up time and no randomization of the study, future comparative studies are warranted to further analyze long-term outcomes of tRLRNU.