Oncologic outcomes obtained after laparoscopic, robotic and/or single port nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract tumours.

Ribal, Maria; Huguet, J.; Alcaraz, A.

Introduction: Open surgery (ONU) is still considered to be the gold standard approach for nephroureterectomy (NU); however, with the introduction of laparoscopic surgery, minimally invasive techniques have been applied to surgical therapy of upper urinary tract tumours (UUT-UC) and they are gaining adepts. However, several concerns still exist about the safety of laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LNU) in the treatment of UUT-UC, and different authors suggest that, although it could be equivalent to open surgery, this equivalence is not accomplished in all UUT-UC, suggesting that more advanced disease should undergo open surgery. More controversial still is the application of robotic surgery (RALNU) or really novel minimally invasive techniques, such as laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESSNU), for the treatment of UUT-UC. Although all these techniques seem feasible, their influence on oncologic results is still a matter of concern. Methodology: We present a review on the oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive laparoscopic techniques in the treatment of UUT-UC. We focus our analysis on oncologic outcomes and we also analyze the different techniques proposed for the treatment of the distal ureter during minimally invasive surgery for UUT-UC. In the absence of prospective randomized studies with large patient samples, we must base our conclusions on retrospective studies and longer follow-up. Conclusion: Given the evidence accumulated so far, LNU has proven to be equivalent or non-inferior, in terms of recurrence-free survival (RFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) to ONU. Nevertheless, comparative studies are needed with longer follow-up before determining the equivalence of LNU in advanced tumours.

ONCOLOGY; LAPAROSCOPIC surgery; URINARY organ surgery; URINARY organs; ENDOSCOPIC surgery; FOLLOW-up studies (Medicine); TUMOR treatment; TUMORS

World Journal of Urology, 2013, Vol 31, Issue 1, p93

0724-4983

Academic Journal

10.1007/s00345-012-0968-0