scholarly journals The role of intraoperative ultrasound in small renal mass robotic enucleation

2016 ◽  
Vol 88 (4) ◽  
pp. 311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberta Gunelli ◽  
Massimo Fiori ◽  
Cristiano Salaris ◽  
Umberto Salomone ◽  
Marco Urbinati ◽  
...  

Introduction: As a result of the growing evidence on tumor radical resection in literature, simple enucleation has become one of the best techniques associated to robotic surgery in the treatment of renal neoplasia, as it guarantees minimal invasiveness and the maximum sparing of renal tissue, facilitating the use of reduced or zero ischemia techniques during resection. The use of a robotic ultrasound probe represents a useful tool to detect and define tumor location, especially in poorly exophytic small renal mass. Materials and methods: A total of 22 robotic enucleations were performed on < 3 cm renal neoplasias (PADUA score 18 Pz 6/7 e 4 Pz 8) using a 12-5 MHz robotic ultrasound probe (BK Drop-In 8826). Results: Once kidney had been isolated from the adipose capsule at the site of the neoplasia (2), the exact position of the lesion could be easily identified in all cases (22/22), even for mostly endophytic lesions, thanks to the insertion of the ultrasound probe through the assistant port. Images were produced and visualized by the surgeon using the TilePro feature of the DaVinci surgical system for producing a picture-in-picture image on the console screen. The margins of resection were then marked with cautery, thus allowing for speedy anatomical dissection. This reduced the time of ischemia to 8 min (6-13) and facilitated the enucleation technique when performed without clamping the renal peduncle (6/22). No complications due to the use of the ultrasound probe were observed. Conclusions: The use of an intraoperative robotic ultrasound probe has allowed for easier identification of small, mostly endophytic neoplasias, better anatomical approach, shorter ischemic time, reduced risk of pseudocapsule rupture during dissection, and easier enucleation in cases performed without clamping. It is noteworthy that the use of intraoperative ultrasound probe allows mental reconstruction of the tumor through an accurate 3D vision of the hidden field during surgical dissection.

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Md Jahangir Kabir

Abstract Not Available Bangladesh Journal of Urology, Vol. 16, No. 1, Jan 2013 p.1-4


2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyung Sun Song ◽  
Ji Hoon Phi ◽  
Byung-Kyu Cho ◽  
Kyu-Chang Wang ◽  
Ji Yeoun Lee ◽  
...  

Object Glioblastoma is the most common primary malignant brain tumor; however, glioblastoma in children is less common than in adults, and little is known about its clinical outcome in children. The authors evaluated the long-term outcome of glioblastoma in children. Methods Twenty-seven children were confirmed to have harbored a glioblastoma between 1985 and 2007. The clinical features and treatment outcomes were reviewed retrospectively. All patients underwent resection; complete resection was performed in 12 patients (44%), subtotal resection in 12 patients (44%), and biopsy in 3 patients (11%). Twenty-four patients (89%) had radiation therapy, and 14 (52%) patients received chemotherapy plus radiation therapy. Among the latter, 5 patients had radiation therapy concurrent with temozolomide chemotherapy. Four patients with small-size recurrent glioblastoma received stereotactic radiosurgery. Results The median overall survival (OS) was 43 months, and the median progression-free survival was 12 months. The OS rate was 67% at 1 year, 52% at 2 years, and 40% at 5 years. The median OS was significantly associated with tumor location (52 months for superficially located tumors vs 7 months for deeply located tumors; p = 0.017) and extent of removal (106 months for completely resected tumors vs 11 months for incompletely resected tumors; p < 0.0001). Conclusions The prognosis of glioblastoma is better in children than in adults. Radical resection followed by concurrent chemoradiation therapy may be the initial treatment of choice.


2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 513-519.e5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodrigo R. Pessoa ◽  
Riccardo Autorino ◽  
M. Pilar Laguna ◽  
Wilson R. Molina ◽  
Diedra Gustafson ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 79 ◽  
pp. S818-S819
Author(s):  
L. Bianchi ◽  
P. Piazza ◽  
F. Chessa ◽  
A. Mottaran ◽  
C. Casablanca ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 47 (9) ◽  
pp. 1503-1508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas H. Russell ◽  
Mitchell S. Wachtel ◽  
Heiko W. de Riese ◽  
Allan L. Haynes ◽  
Werner T. W. de Riese

2019 ◽  
Vol 201 (Supplement 4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tariq A. Khemees* ◽  
Anthony Bui ◽  
Daniel D. Shapiro ◽  
Sara L. Best ◽  
Shane A. Wells ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. xv
Author(s):  
Samir S. Taneja
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document