Laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 2, 2026
5/6 Nephrectomy Using Sharp Bipolectomy Via Midline Laparotomy in Rats
Published on: April 4, 2025
Kenneth A Beasley1, Mohamed Al Omar, Alison Shaikh
1Division of Urology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Objectives:
To compare, retrospectively, the results of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) to open partial nephrectomy (OPN) using a tumor size-matched cohort of patients. Limited data are available comparing LPN to OPN in the treatment of small renal tumors.
Methods:
Between September 2000 and September 2003, 27 LPNs and 22 OPNs were performed to treat renal masses less than 4 cm. Patient demographics and tumor location and size (2.4 +/- 1.0 cm versus 2.9 +/- 0.9 cm, respectively; P = not statistically significant) were similar between the LPN and OPN groups.
Results:
Although the mean operative time was longer in the LPN than in the OPN group (210 +/- 76 minutes versus 144 +/- 24 minutes; P <0.001), the blood loss was comparable between the two groups (250 +/- 250 mL versus 334 +/- 343 mL; P = not statistically significant). No blood transfusions were performed in either group. The hospital stay was significantly reduced after LPN compared with after OPN (2.9 +/- 1.5 days versus 6.4 +/- 1.8 days; P <0.0002), and the postoperative parenteral narcotic requirements were lower in the LPN group (mean morphine equivalent 43 +/- 62 mg versus 187 +/- 71 mg; P <0.02). Three complications occurred in each group. With LPN, no patient had positive margins or tumor recurrence. Also, direct financial analysis demonstrated lower total hospital costs after LPN (4839 dollars+/- 1551 dollars versus 6297 dollars+/- 2972 dollars; P <0.05).
Conclusions:
LPN confers several benefits over OPN concerning patient convalescence and costs, despite prolonged resection times at our current phase of the learning curve. Long-term results on cancer control in patients treated with LPN continue to be assessed.
