Knotless retroperitoneoscopic nephron-sparing surgery for small renal masses: Comparison of bipolar sutureless technique and barbed suture technique

List of Abbreviations

RPNSS: retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery

LNSS: laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery

WIT: warm ischemia time

Introduction

Nephron-sparing surgery is the standard surgical treatment for small renal tumors (≤4 cm in size). ¹ Retroperitoneoscopic nephron-sparing surgery (RPNSS) has the advantages of fast recovery, direct control of target organs, and reduced interference from the intestines compared with open or transperitoneal laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery (LNSS).^2–6 Nevertheless, ensuring hemostatic control and reducing the warm ischemia time (WIT) remain the key surgical concerns in RPNSS. Laparoscopic knot-tying and suturing are the most difficult steps in decreasing the WIT and shortening the learning curve, making this procedure a challenging and highly advanced laparoscopic surgery for most urologists.

Knotless techniques using self-locking clips^7,8 and barbed self-retaining suture^9,10 have been introduced and popularized in most institutions to avoid knot-tying during laparoscopy and thus simplify the procedure. Sutureless techniques using hemostatic agents and modalities^11–13 have also been developed to avoid suturing during laparoscopy. To our knowledge, however, this is the first large-volume study to compare the safety and oncological efficacy of a sutureless technique versus a barbed suture technique. We herein introduce the indications and technical tips of sutureless RPNSS based on our single-center experience.

Patients and methods

Results

Operative results

The patients’ characteristics and results of RPNSS are shown on Table 1. The mean WIT was significantly shorter in the sutureless than barbed group (6.8 vs. 21.1 minutes, p = 0.022). There were no statistically significant differences in the mean age, body mass index, operative time, maximal tumor diameter, intraparenchymal depth, R.E.N.A.L. Nephrometry score, blood loss, operative time, transfusion rate, complication rate, or postoperative hospital stay between the two groups. No open conversion or conversion to radical nephrectomy was needed. Five patients who had been planned to undergo the sutureless technique were converted to the barbed suture technique.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Patient characteristics and operative outcomes

	Sutureless group	Barbed group	Total	p
Patients (n)	78	126	204
Sex (male/female, n)	49/29	71/55	120/84
Age (years)	52.7 ± 13.4	53.7 ± 8.3	53.3 ± 8.7	0.532
Side (left/right)	41/37	74/52	115/89
Body mass index (kg/m2)	23.9 ± 4.0	24.6 ± 3.1	24.3 ± 3.9	0.521
Maximal diameter (mm)	2.12 ± 0.7	2.89 ± 0.9	2.6 ± 0.8	0.052
Intraparenchymal depth (mm)	7.1 ± 3.9	16.2 ± 9.1	12.7 ± 7.9	0.096
R.E.N.A.L. Nephrometry score	4.8 ± 0.8	6.5 ± 1.9	6.03 ± 1.8	0.088
Operative time (min)	131.0 ± 48.1	148.3 ± 28.1	141.7 ± 35.1	0.598
Warm ischemia time (min)	6.8 ± 1.2	21.1 ± 1.9	15.6 ± 1.4	0.022*
Blood loss (mL)	83.6 ± 57.3	78.4 ± 51.6	80.4 ± 52.9	0.512
Transfusion rate (%)	1.3	5.6	4.0	0.439
Open conversion (n)	0	0	0
Complication rate (%)	9	7.1	7.8	0.763
Postoperative stay (days)	5.9 ± 2.4	6.2 ± 2.2	6.1 ± 2.2	0.779
Preoperative creatinine (mg/dL)	71.9 ± 13.9	74.8 ± 12.6	73.7 ± 12.9	0.587
Postoperative creatinine (mg/dL)	77.9 ± 2.8	81.3 ± 2.2	80.0 ± 2.6	0.592
Follow-up (months)	47.2 ± 7.3	49.3 ± 12.4	48.5 ± 10.3	0.835

Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation unless otherwise indicated.

Postoperative results

Seven patients in the sutureless group developed minor complications (Clavien–Dindo Grade I–II), all of which were cured with conservative treatment. These complications comprised four cases of postoperative fever cured with antibiotic treatment, one case of postoperative hemorrhage cured by blood transfusion, one case of lower extremity venous thrombosis, and one case of postoperative transient elevation of the serum creatinine level (1.70 mg/dL). In the barbed group, one patient developed a major complication (Clavien–Dindo Grade ≥III) requiring interventional embolization of a renal artery branch because of massive bleeding, and eight patients developed minor complications that were cured with conservative treatment. The minor complications comprised five cases of postoperative fever, two cases of massive drainage without urinary leakage, and one case of postoperative intestinal obstruction treated by conservative treatment. No positive margins or local recurrence were observed during the median follow-up of 48.5 months. The pathological results are shown in Table 2.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Pathological outcomes

	Sutureless group	Barbed group	Total
Pathology
Clear cell cancer	51	73	124
Angiomyolipoma	15	22	37
Renal cyst	6	7	13
Chromophobe	3	6	9
Papillary renal  cancer	2	6	8
Oncocytoma		6	6
Neurinoma		1	1
Necrosis		2	2
Juxtaglomerular  cell tumor		1	1
Tuberculosis		1	1
Wilms’ tumor	1		1
No tumor		1	1
Positive margin	0	0	0
Recurrence	0	0	0

Data are presented as number of patients.

Discussion

Nephron-sparing surgery has been recommended as a preferred method for the treatment of stage T1 renal masses when applicable because it not only effectively controls the tumor but also provides superior functional outcomes compared with radical nephrectomy. ¹ LNSS has been widely accepted because of its minimal invasiveness and convalescence benefits.^2,5,16 RPNSS provides direct control of the target organs and reduces interference from the intestines compared with transperitoneal LNSS.^2,3 However, time-consuming intracorporeal suturing and knot-tying for homeostasis and renal parenchymal repair within 30 minutes of WIT are the most technically difficult steps for novice laparoscopic urologists. Various techniques have been reported to avoid knot-tying and suturing during laparoscopy and thus simplify this technically advanced procedure.^7–10 To avoid the time-consuming and technically demanding intracorporeal knot-tying, a knotless technique was introduced using Lapra-Ty absorbable clips (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH, USA), ⁷ Hem-o-Lok clips (Weck Closure Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA), ⁸ Quill sutures (Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Reading, PA, USA), ⁹ and V-Loc sutures (Covidien). ¹⁰ Self-locking clips can facilitate suturing by avoiding knot-tying and maintaining adequate compression of the renal tissue with cinched sutures to prevent the parenchymal edge from slipping.^7,8 With further developments, novel barbed sutures were introduced for renorrhaphy with the advantages of a shortened WIT and decreased urinary complication rate.^9,10 Therefore, the barbed technique is accepted worldwide, including in our institution, where we have achieved surgical safety and oncologic efficacy comparable with that reported in the literature.^17,18 In the present study, the blood loss, operative time, transfusion rate, complication rate, WIT, and postoperative recovery of this technique were acceptable, with favorable safety and effectiveness. Therefore, comparison with the barbed group as a control was used to demonstrate the expertise of RPNSS at our institution.

To avoid intracorporeal suturing and additional loss of the functional renal parenchymal suturing edge, sutureless techniques have also been developed for LNSS using hemostatic agents and modalities such as glues, bolsters, lasers, and electrocoagulation.^12,13,19,20 However, sutureless techniques have only been reported in isolated case series or limited cases with comparison of knot-tying suture repair.^12,13,21 Although the feasibility of such techniques has been previously demonstrated in the literature, the long-term oncological outcomes, specific indications, and technical tips remain unclear.

Compared with the barbed control group, which showed favorable safety and effectiveness, the sutureless RPNSS technique was also acceptable in terms of a comparable complication rate, postoperative recovery, positive margins, and follow-up outcomes. The advantage of the sutureless technique is the avoidance of laparoscopic knot-tying and suturing, leading a reduced WIT and easy tissue manipulation. This technique may encourage laparoscopic novices to learn and master this technically demanding surgery. However, it is also important for novice surgeons using this technique to have an experienced surgeon available for unexpected failure in the initial cases.

The indications for the sutureless RPNSS technique include a tumor diameter of <4 cm, intraparenchymal depth of <2 cm, and a <1-mm border from the tumor to the collecting system. Conversion to a suturing technique is needed if satisfactory bleeding control cannot be attained. Five patients who were planned to undergo the sutureless technique underwent such conversion because of an open incision of the collecting system or unsatisfactory bleeding control. Thus, it is important for surgeons to be able to perform simple suturing even if it is time-consuming. Four technical tips should be kept in mind during this operation. First, it is important to determine whether a >1-mm gap is present between the tumor and collecting system on radiographic images. Second, strict hemostasis of the resection bed should be ensured by placing clips on the vessel stumps and using bipolar coagulation until the hemostasis is satisfactory. Third, the surgeon should carefully check for tiny defects of the collecting system on the tumor resection bed. Finally, the surgeon should prepare a self-retaining suture and not hesitate to suture the bleeding resection bed if the hemostasis is not satisfactory or any calyceal defect is present.

The main limitation of this study is its retrospective nature and potential selection bias caused by the preoperative radiographic judgments and individual expertise. Additionally, the significant difference in the intraparenchymal depth of the renal masses between the two groups may have led to the decreased WIT. Nevertheless, no significant differences were found in safety or oncological efficacy, and this sutureless technique may therefore give novice surgeons some confidence. The complications in the sutureless group were acceptable. One patient in the sutureless group developed massive postoperative drainage and was cured by conservative treatment involving cessation of urine leakage. Another patient developed postoperative thrombosis in a lower limb vein and was treated by anticoagulation without renal wound bleeding. The postoperative serum creatinine concentration of another patient was transiently elevated at 1.70 mg/dL but returned to normal 2 weeks later. The other four patients developed a postoperative fever that resolved with conservative treatment. No urine leakage or other complications occurred. No significant difference was observed in the transfusion rate, postoperative hospital stay, or incidence of complications between the two groups. No positive margin or local recurrence was observed postoperatively.

Conclusions

Compared with the barbed suture technique, the sutureless RPNSS was proven to be safe and oncologically effective. Because it is free from laparoscopic knot-tying and suturing, it may encourage novice laparoscopic surgeons to more confidently and quickly master this technically demanding procedure.