Korean J Urol.  2007 Feb;48(2):158-162. 10.4111/kju.2007.48.2.158.

The Early Experience of Video-assisted Minilaparotomy Surgery (VAMS)

• Hwang HH
• Park RJ
• Cheon SH

• KMID: 2139754
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2007.48.2.158

Abstract

PURPOSE: Video-assisted minilaparotomy surgery (VAMS) is a hybrid of conventional open and laparoscopic surgeries, which combines the benefits of both techniques. Our initial experiences with 33 cases were analyzed to assess the feasibility of VAMS.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Between May 2004 and April 2006, a total of 33 patients underwent VAMS-radical (n=20) and VAMS-live donor nephrectomies (n=13). The results of each operation were analyzed in terms of patient age, operation time, blood loss during surgery, time of oral intake and full ambulation, post operative stay period and amount of analgesic use.
RESULTS
The mean age of the patients that had undergone the VAMS- radical and VAMS donor nephrectomies were 55.9 12.4 and 36.0 8.6 years, respectively. The mean results of the VAMS radical nephrectomy and VAMS donor nephrectomy with regard to the operative time, blood losses, time to oral intake, time to ambulation, postoperative length of stay and postoperative length of analgesics use were 225+/-72 / 253+/-67 minutes, 378+/-254 / 447+/-208cc, 2.1+/-0.7 / 1.4+/-0.5 days, 2.1+/-1.1 / 1.6+/-0.7 days, 6.2+/-1.1 / 6.2+/-1.0 days and 1.7+/-0.8 / 1.6+/-0.5 days, respectively. The mean warm ischemic time of VAMS donor nephrectomy was 2.4+/-0.8 minutes. The mean operation time of the 10 earliest cases of VAMS radical nephrectomy was 283 minutes; whereas, that of the last 10 cases decreased to 166 minutes. The mean operation time of the 7 earliest cases of VAMS donor nephrectomy was 299 minutes, which decreased to 206 minutes in the last 6 cases. Complications included 3 wound extensions in 5 patients experiencing massive intraoperative bleeding, 1 pneumonia, 1 wound dehiscence and 1 postoperative bleeding, all of which occurred in the 8 earliest cases. CONCLISIONS: VAMS could be a safe and feasible minimally invasive surgical procedure as experience is accumulated; when the initial learning curve has been overcome.

Keyword

Nephrectomy; Surgical procedures; minimally invasive; Video- assisted surgery

MeSH Terms

Analgesics
Hemorrhage
Humans
Laparoscopy
Laparotomy*
Learning Curve
Length of Stay
Nephrectomy
Operative Time
Pneumonia
Tissue Donors
Walking
Warm Ischemia
Wounds and Injuries
Analgesics

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Operating times of video-assisted minilaparotomy surgery (VAMS)-radical nephrectomy and VAMS-live donor nephrectomy with accumulated surgical experience.

• 

  Fig. 2 Blood losses of video-assisted minilaparotomy surgery (VAMS)-radical nephrectomy and VAMS-live donor nephrectomy with accumulated surgical experience. 3 cases (case No. 1, 3 and 8) of VAMS-radical nephrectomy and 2 cases (case No. 1 and 3) of VAMS-live donor nephrectomy had massive intraoperative bleeding due to slipping of the clamping devices.

Reference

1. Yang SC, Ko WJ, Byun YJ, Rha KH. Retroperitoneoscopy assisted live donor nephrectomy: the Yonsei experience. J Urol. 2001. 165:1099–1102.

2. Lee SW, Lee JJ, Lee TY. The early experience of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy. Korean J Urol. 2002. 43:818–823.

3. Byun YJ, Kim JH, Yang SC. Laparoscopy-assisted radical nephrectomy through minilaparotomy. Korean J Urol. 2000. 41:1397–1402.

4. Suzuki K, Masuda H, Ushiyama T, Hata M, Fujita K, Kawabe K. Gasless laparoscopy-assisted nephrectomy without tissue morcellation for renal carcinoma. J Urol. 1995. 154:1685–1687.

5. Hayakawa K, Nishiyama T, Ohashi M, Ishikawa H, Hata M. A trial of laparoscopic assisted radical nephrectomy. Nippon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi. 1997. 88:801–806.

6. Hayakawa K, Aoyagi T, Ohashi M, Hata M. Comparison of gas-less laparoscopy-assisted surgery, hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and pure laparoscopic surgery for radical nephrectomy. Int J Urol. 2004. 11:142–147.

7. Kihara K, Kageyama Y, Yano M, Kobayashi T, Kawakami S, Fujii Y, et al. Portless endoscopic radical nephrectomy via a single minimum incision in 80 patients. Int J Urol. 2004. 11:714–720.

8. Yang SC, Lee DH, Rha KH, Park K. Retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy: two cases. Transplant Proc. 1994. 26:2409.

9. Yang SC, Park DS, Lee DH, Lee JM, Park K. Retroperitoneal endoscopic live donor nephrectomy: report of 3 cases. J Urol. 1995. 153:1884–1886.

10. Oh CK, Rha KH, Yang SC. A comparison of open, laparoscopic, and video-assisted minilaparotomy radical nephrectomy. Korean J Urol. 2005. 46:925–930.

11. Jackson CL. Urologic laparoscopy. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2001. 10:571–578.