Is there a model to teach and practice retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy?
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
7
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2013
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
INFORMA HEALTHCARE
Citação
MINIMALLY INVASIVE THERAPY & ALLIED TECHNOLOGIES, v.22, n.1, p.33-38, 2013
Resumo
Introduction: Although the retroperitoneal approach has been the preferred choice for open urological procedures, retroperitoneoscopy is not the preferred approach for laparoscopy. This study aims to develop a training model for retroperitoneoscopy and to establish an experimental learning curve. Material and methods: Fifteen piglets were operated on to develop a standard retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy (RPN) training model. All procedures were performed with three ports. Intraoperative data (side, operative time, blood loss, peritoneal opening) were recorded. Animals were divided into groups A, the first eight, and B, the last seven cases. Data were statistically analyzed. Results: We performed fifteen RPNs. The operative time varied from 15 to 50 minutes (median 30 minutes). Blood loss varied from 5 to 100 mL (median 20 mL). We experienced five peritoneal openings; we had two surgical vascular complications managed laparoscopically. There was statistical difference between groups A and B for peritoneal opening (p = 0.025), operative time (p = 0.0037), and blood loss (p = 0.026). Discussion: RPN in a porcine model could simulate the whole procedure, from creating the space to nephrectomy completion. Experimental learning curve was eight cases, after statistical data analysis. Conclusion: RPN in a porcine model is feasible and could be very useful for teaching and practicing retroperitoneoscopy.
Palavras-chave
Learning, surgical education, training, minimally invasive surgery
Referências
- Abbou CC, 1999, J UROLOGY, V161, P1776, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)68797-6
- Abdelmaksoud A, 2005, BJU INT, V95, P244, DOI 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05277.x
- CLAYMAN RV, 1991, J UROLOGY, V146, P278
- Desal MM, 2005, J UROLOGY, V173, P38, DOI 10.1097/01.ju.0000145886.26719.73
- Diemunsch P, 1999, J PEDIATR SURG, V34, P1514, DOI 10.1016/S0022-3468(99)90115-X
- El-Ghoneimi A, 1998, J UROLOGY, V160, P1138, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)62719-8
- Frede T, 2000, J ENDOUROL, V14, P905, DOI 10.1089/end.2000.14.905
- Frede T, 2000, J ENDOUROL, V14, p[13, 4]
- Frede T, 1999, J ENDOUROL, V13, P191, DOI 10.1089/end.1999.13.191
- GAUR DD, 1992, J UROLOGY, V148, P1137
- Gill IS, 1998, UROLOGY, V52, P566, DOI 10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00314-8
- Gill IS, 1996, J UROLOGY, V156, P1120, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65722-7
- Hoznek András, 2004, Curr Urol Rep, V5, P93, DOI 10.1007/s11934-004-0020-z
- Kaouk JH, 2000, UROLOGY, V56, P1058, DOI 10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00781-0
- Le CQ, 2007, J UROLOGY, V177, P288, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.106
- Liapis D, 2008, WORLD J UROL, V26, P523, DOI 10.1007/s00345-008-0319-3
- McDougall EM, 2007, J ENDOUROL, V21, P244, DOI 10.1089/end.2007.9985
- Meraney AM, 2002, J UROLOGY, V168, P1941, DOI 10.1097/01.ju.0000034705.66333.cf
- Rassweiler J, 2007, J ENDOUROL, V21, P252, DOI 10.1089/end.2007.9983
- RASSWEILER JJ, 1993, UROLOGE A, V32, P393
- Rassweiler JJ, 1998, J UROLOGY, V160, P1265, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)62512-6
- Sung GT, 2002, J ENDOUROL, V16, P165, DOI 10.1089/089277902753716133
- Uson Gargallo J, 2006, ACTAS UROL ESP, V30, P443
- Wakabayashi Y, 2003, J UROLOGY, V169, P256, DOI 10.1097/01.ju.0000036381.55006.ff
- Wignall GR, 2008, J UROLOGY, V179, P1690, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.014