- Pictorial Review
- Open Access
Multidetector CT imaging of complications after laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery
© The Author(s) 2015
- Received: 17 February 2015
- Accepted: 21 May 2015
- Published: 24 June 2015
Laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery (L-NSS) is increasingly performed to treat localised renal lesions. However, the associated morbidity is non-negligible, with a rate of major complications approaching 10 %.
Methods and Results
This paper provides an overview of indications, surgical techniques and results of L-NSS; explains the incidence, risk factors and manifestations of postoperative complications; discusses the preferred multidetector computed tomography (CT) acquisition techniques; illustrates the appearance of normal postoperative images following L-NSS; and reviews, with example images, the most common and unusual iatrogenic complications. These include haematuria, haemorrhage, vascular injuries, infections and urinary leaks. Most emphasis is placed on CT, which provides rapid, reliable triage and follow-up of iatrogenic complications after L-NSS, identifying occurrences that require transarterial embolisation or repeated surgery.
Multidetector CT allows precise assessment of the surgical resection site; detection of pneumoperitoneum and subcutaneous emphysema; quantification of retroperitoneal blood; and identification of active bleeding, pseudoaneurysms, arterio-venous fistulas, abscess collections and extravasated urine.
• Laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) is increasingly performed to treat renal lesions.
• Radiologists are increasingly requested to investigate suspected post-surgical NSS complications.
• Post-NSS complications include haemorrhage, haematuria, vascular injuries, infections and urinary leaks.
• Multidetector CT allows choice between conservative treatment, transarterial embolisation or surgery.
- Laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery
- Urine leak
- Computed tomography (CT)
As a result of improved surgical techniques and greater focus on minimising functional impairment over the last decade, the therapeutic approach to localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has evolved from the classical radical nephrectomy (RN) towards nephron-sparing surgery (NSS), which was initially performed using an open surgical approach. Compared with RN, open partial nephrectomy (O-PN) achieved a lower rate of postoperative loss of renal function, after adjustment for age, hypertension and diabetes, and similar long-term oncological and quality-of-life outcomes [1, 2].
Meanwhile, the widespread use of ultrasound, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has led to a steady increase in the detection of benign, malignant or indeterminate renal lesions requiring surgery, so that currently almost 50 % of RCCs are diagnosed incidentally, often during imaging studies requested for unrelated reasons. As a result, conservative surgery is increasingly performed to treat patients with small-sized renal masses. According to the most recent guidelines from the European Association of Urology (EAU) [1, 2], NSS represents the treatment of choice for localised RCC. It can be performed with an open, laparoscopic or robot-assisted approach, based on the surgeon’s expertise and skills. Indications for NSS include T1a-b stage RCC and selected masses up to 7 cm, unless contraindicated by unfavourable anatomical location of the tumour or general deterioration of the patient’s condition. Absolute indications include tumours in a solitary kidney, impaired renal function and hereditary disorders that predispose to recurrent RCC. Furthermore, laparoscopy is an appealing minimally invasive treatment for indeterminate renal cysts requiring surgery, and benign masses such as angiomyolipoma or oncocytoma. Relative contraindications for laparoscopy include prior surgical procedures (due to the presence of intra-abdominal adhesions), cirrhosis and portal hypertension, marked bowel distension (which increases the risk for bowel injury), ongoing sepsis and cardiopulmonary disease [1–3].
Both O-PN and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (L-PN) resulted in superior long-term preservation of renal function. After NSS, patients have a much lower (20 %) 3-year probability of developing chronic kidney disease (defined by <60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 estimated glomerular filtration rate [e-GFR]) compared with RN (65 %). At 10 years, the cumulative incidence of chronic renal failure is 22.4 % and 11.6 % for the RN and NSS groups, respectively [4, 5].
Comparison between O-PN and L-PN revealed shorter operating time and warm renal ischaemia time with the open approach, and lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay in the laparoscopic group. No differences were reported in long-term impact on renal function (mean E-GFR decrease 4.1 vs 1.1 mL/min), overall postoperative morbidity and mortality, or progression-free and overall survival (91–94 % 5-year cancer-specific survival) [6–16].
However, L-PN is a technically demanding surgical procedure, with a steep learning curve and potentially serious complications particularly in elderly patients with comorbidities. The overall complication rate in a European multi-institutional series was reported to be 23 %, while a worldwide literature review reported a rate of major complications approaching 10 % [8, 9].
Alternatively, localised renal masses may be treated by laparoscopic or imaging-guided ablative techniques. Although no definite conclusions can be drawn from available studies, surgically treated patients show lower local recurrence rate and cancer-specific mortality; therefore the EAU recommends cryoablation and radiofrequency ablation in elderly and/or comorbid patients with limited life expectancy [1, 2, 17]. However, percutaneous cryoablation and radiofrequency ablation were recently shown to be effective in the treatment of T1 stage RCC, offering excellent preservation of kidney function and similar clinical efficacy and oncological outcome (5-year survival exceeding 90 %) compared with surgery, with a limited incidence of major (4.3–5.6 %) and minor complications and no significant differences between the two modalities [18–21].
Owing to the increasing use of laparoscopy, in hospitals with active surgical practices urologists increasingly request imaging studies to assess patients with suspected postoperative complications following L-PN. This paper provides an overview of the indications, results and technical principles of laparoscopic NSS (L-NSS), and describes the postoperative radiological outcome following L-NSS [22–25].
RENAL nephrometry score (adapted from Parsons et al. )
Renal lesion feature
R—Radius (maximal diameter)
E—Exophtic vs endophytic
≥50 % Exophytic (projecting outside the renal cortex)
<50 % exophytic
N—Nearness to the collecting system/renal sinus
A—Anterior vs posterior location)
Descriptive (no numeric score)
“a”, ventral; “p”, dorsal; “x”, others
L—Location relative to polar lines
Entirely below lower or above upper polar line
Crosses polar line
50 % of mass across polar line
Entirely between polar lines
Crosses the axial midline
Additional suffix “h” if tumour reaches hilar vessels
Renal lesion complexity
RENAL nephrometry score range
Laparoscopic surgical technique
In the majority of patients, L-NSS is performed via the transperitoneal (TP) route; conversely, posterior and postero-lateral renal tumours are best managed with a retroperitoneal approach [9, 11, 29, 30]. Preoperative ureteral catheterisation may be used, particularly when access to the collecting system is necessary. According to some authors, intraoperative ultrasonography for assessment of renal perfusion, tumour location and borders may prove beneficial and result in a change of procedure in a minority (2.5 %) of patients . After laparoscopic access to the retroperitoneum and opening of Gerota’s fascia, en bloc or selective arterial clamping of the renal hilar vascular pedicle is performed to decrease bleeding and ensure a clear surgical field: the acceptable warm ischaemia time is limited to 30 min or less. Depending on the tumour’s size and location, NSS options include segmental polar nephrectomy, wedge resection, transverse resection and enucleation, to obtain complete tumour excision with a proper margin of normal tissue, and preservation of the maximum possible amount of functioning renal parenchyma. After removal of the resected renal portion, surgery requires suture repair of collecting system defects, filling of the parenchymal defect with peri-renal fat or bioabsorbable bolster agents, renal parenchymal reconstruction and closure with a combination of absorbable sutures, argon-beam coagulation and haemostatic agents. Finally, after reconstruction is finished, the vascular clamp is released to restore circulation. Hilar masses, multiple and/or infiltrating tumours with pelvicalyceal involvement pose specific and significant technical challenges for NSS. In selected patients, conversion to laparoscopic RN or O-PN may be necessary when L-NSS is deemed unfeasible by the surgeon after renal exploration [9, 11, 29, 30].
The spectrum of non-urological complications after L-NSS includes cardiovascular (deep venous thrombosis, congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation), pulmonary (pleural effusion, atelectasis/pneumonia, thromboembolism) and gastrointestinal issues (ileus, colonic segmental ischemia, bowel injury, splenic haemorrhage); sepsis; wound infection; and incisional hernias. Specific (urological) complications include massive subcutaneous emphysema, persistent haematuria, haemorrhage, renal vascular injuries, urine leak, renal failure and infections (such as urinary infection, peri-renal abscess and sepsis) [6–12]. Clinically, complications are usually graded by urologists according to the validated Clavien–Dindo system, including, in ascending order of severity, grades I (any deviation from usual postoperative course limited to treatment with anti-emetics, antipyretics, analgesics, diuretics and electrolytes), II (requiring other medical therapies including blood transfusions), III (surgical, endoscopic or interventional treatment), IV (life-threatening complication necessitating intensive care support) and V (death) [32, 33].
Overall, adverse events after L-NSS occur in 23 % of patients: almost two-thirds of cases are minor occurrences (Clavien grades I–II). Despite favourable preoperative patient features and lower objective complexity of tumours, laparoscopic surgery is associated with more major (grade III or higher) overall (6.2-9 % versus 3–6.3 %) and urological (particularly urine leak) complications compared with O-PN [6–12].
The RENAL score is an objective assessment of the complexity of a tumour and may provide a consistent basis for comparing perioperative and long-term outcomes after L-NSS [26, 27]. According to several studies, patients with highly complex tumours are more likely to experience postoperative complications. Posterior location and proximity to the renal sinus seem to have the greatest association with overall complications and haemorrhage [34–39]. Nephrometry scores have been shown to correlate with increased postoperative hospital stay, blood loss, duration of renal ischaemia risk of conversion to open surgery and postoperative renal function loss [35–41].
Conversely, other studies failed to confirm the predictive value of the RENAL score for complications. Apart from tumour size and central growth, other risk factors are reported, including advanced age and comorbidities, limited surgeon’s experience, intraoperative blood loss and opening of the collecting system [40–43].
Postoperative imaging following L-NSS is generally indicated when clinical features such as hypotension, flank or abdominal pain, gross or persistent haematuria, bleeding from the drainage tube or laboratory abnormalities (particularly blood loss, leucocytosis and increased C-reactive protein levels) suggest a possible complication. Emergency investigation is warranted when signs and symptoms of haemodynamic impairment or sepsis are present [1, 2, 22–25, 29].
In most cases multidetector computed tomography (CT) represents the mainstay imaging technique to comprehensively investigate the abdomen and pelvis in search of possible iatrogenic complications. Experience with blunt body trauma has established that CT is by far the preferred, most rapid and robust technique to depict and grade renal lesions, thus providing the anatomic and functional information necessary for appropriate injury staging and therapeutic choice [22–25, 44]. Intravenous contrast medium (CM) should be administered, unless contraindicated. Since patients that have recently been operated upon are often dehydrated, with limited urine output, the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) guidelines recommend special care in ensuring adequate hydration before and after CT, in order to improve urinary tract opacification and to prevent CM nephrotoxicity [45, 46].
In most postoperative urology patients, initial investigation requires a comprehensive multiphase CT acquisition protocol, including: (1) preliminary unenhanced acquisition to demonstrate the postoperative anatomy and detect hyperattenuating blood and abnormal air collections; (2) corticomedullary phase and (3) nephrographic-phase images after CM injection to assess the operated kidney structure and perfusion of the operated kidney, and to identify CM extravasation indicating active bleeding; (4) excretory phase imaging obtained 8–10 min after CM, which demonstrates the opacified urinary cavities and may detect iodinated urine leaks and urinomas. Postoperative CT studies are reviewed interactively on dedicated workstations and complemented with multiplanar reconstructions as necessary, to better depict postoperative anatomy and relevant findings [22–25].
The main drawback of classical multiphase CT protocol is the high radiation dose, which poses a serious concern, particularly considering that these patients usually require serial studies and long-term imaging follow-up. Currently, most institutions are increasingly adopting split-bolus CT-urography acquisitions, which provide combined corticomedullary, nephrographic and excretory imaging with reduced effective radiation dose. In our experience, the time- and dose-efficient triple-bolus protocol described by Kekelidze et al.  has proved very useful in the investigation of iatrogenic urinary tract injuries. This technique includes an initial 30-mL CM bolus injected at a flow of 2 mL/s for urinary opacification, followed by a 7-min delay, then a second (50 mL at 1.5 mL/s) CM injection, with a third one (65 mL at 3 mL/s) 20 s later, to provide parenchymal and vascular visualisation respectively, followed by a single volumetric CT acquisition. Alternatively, a combined nephrographic–excretory phase may be obtained by administration of an initial 30–45 mL CM bolus followed, after a 6– to 8-min delay, by a second 75– to 100-mL injection, which may be useful when bleeding or vascular injuries are not suspected, and during follow-up. Furthermore, we recommend repeated (ultra-delayed) excretory acquisition 45–50 min after CM administration in all patients with urinary leak suspected on the basis of surgical, clinical or laboratory data. If available, dual-energy CT may be beneficial to limit the radiation dose, by allowing reconstruction of a virtual unenhanced dataset from CM-enhanced acquisition [47, 48]. Finally, repeated CT provides consistent monitoring of injuries after conservative or interventional treatment [47–49].
Sometimes, to improve haemostasis, surgeons may pack the SSR intraoperatively with perinephric fat, which should not be mistaken for a fatty mass. Localised non-enhancing fluid collections corresponding to seroma (sometimes with fat-fluid level) may be visualised. In some patients, biologically absorbable haemostatic agents such as Gelfoam (absorbable gelatine compressed sponge; Pfizer, NY, USA) or Surgicel (oxydised cellulose polymer; Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA) may be used to control intraoperative bleeding. Within a few weeks, these bolster agents may show near-water attenuation with interspersed gas foci and can potentially be confused with an abscess; differentiation should rely on knowledge of surgical details, visualisation of gas bubbles arranged in linear fashion and stable appearance or regression on serial scanning. Conversely, abscess should be suspected if a localised fluid collection shows a CM-enhancing rim and contains a gas-fluid level or moving bubbles [22–25].
In patients operated on through a TP laparoscopic approach, air-fluid levels of the small bowel consistent with adynamic ileus and minimal or moderate pneumoperitoneum (Figs. 4, 5) are commonly observed during the early postoperative period. If unknown, the type of laparoscopic access used may be guessed by searching for port access sites, in either the anterior ipsilateral abdomen (TP) or flank (retroperitoneal) . Owing to the small incisions and the rapid absorption of CO2 from the perfusion gas, relative to that of room air, variable amounts of residual intraperitoneal free air are commonly observed following laparoscopy (in at least one-third of patients) within the first 3 days, and may sometimes last up to 9 days after surgery. However, postoperative pneumoperitoneum after laparoscopy is generally more limited than with open surgery, and decreases on serial imaging. Conversely, persistent or increasing intra-abdominal gas should raise concern for hollow viscus injury [3, 50, 51].
Resulting from inadequate suturing or coagulation of transacted blood vessels, early postoperative haemorrhage with or without radiologically identifiable active bleeding represents the most common complication after L-NSS, with a reported incidence approaching 6–8 % of procedures. Blood transfusions are required in 5–21 % of patients and constitute a Clavien grade II complication [6–12].
Renal vascular complications
According to the EAU guidelines, iatrogenic renal vascular injuries (IRVI) rank among the rarest (less than 1 % overall), yet most feared complications after percutaneous biopsy, nephrostomy, nephroureterolithotomy, renal artery angioplasty or stenting, and NSS. The IRVI spectrum encompasses arterio-venous fistulas (AVFs), renal pseudoaneurysms (R-PA), vascular thrombosis and renal infarction. IRVIs can lead to significant morbidity, including massive haemorrhage, life-threatening haematuria, need for nephrectomy or deterioration of renal function [24, 32, 37].
Renal artery and intra-parenchymal pseudoaneurysms occur after 0.43–1.3 % of L-NSS procedures, and result from partial or complete injury to an intra-renal artery at the SSR, the main renal artery or one of its main branches. Specifically, R-PA may form when the combined effect of hypotension, coagulation and pressure from the adjacent structures leads to temporary cessation of the bleeding, followed by recanalisation from clot degradation. R-PAs may sometimes grow, become unstable from restorated blood flow, and eventually erode into the pelvicalyceal system or the surrounding perinephric tissues. Most cases are diagnosed during the first 2–3 weeks after surgery, occasionally after a few months’ delay. Diagnosing R-PA requires a high level of suspicion, since clinical manifestations are often vague or non-specific such as flank pain, gross haematuria, dizziness and fever [11, 32, 53, 54].
Occasionally, arterial clamping may injure the vessel intima, thus leading to thrombosis, infarction and atrophy. CT-angiography depicts arterial thrombosis as abrupt vessel cut-off, and renal infarction (Fig. 8) as a peripheral wedge-shaped non-enhancing area in the renal parenchyma, with a rim of enhancement at the periphery of the cortex (rim sign) due to preserved capsular blood flow [22, 24].
Selective angiography evaluates the lesion dynamically and allows planning for trans-arterial embolisation (TAE) and super-selective catheterisation 
Urine leaks and urinomas
Surgical access to the collecting system is necessary to ensure an adequate margin of resection for tumours extending deeply into the renal parenchyma: if the subsequent pelvicalyceal repair is not watertight, urine may leak into the surgical bed leading to a peri-renal urinoma or collection of a mixture of blood and urine. Urine leakage has been estimated to occur in 1.3-3.6 % of L-PN interventions [6–12].
Most urine leaks resolve spontaneously over time and are generally managed conservatively with ureteral stenting, Foley catheter or percutaneous nephrostomy. Endourological fulguration and percutaneous imaging-guided drainage may be required to treat persistent leaks and urinomas, respectively [29, 49].
In most patients with suspected postoperative complications after L-NSS, urgent multidetector CT imaging allows detection of intraluminal and peri-renal haemorrhage, active bleeding, vascular injuries, extravasated urine and infections. Therefore, CT findings usually provide a consistent basis for assessment of the severity of injury and a correct choice between conservative treatment, TAE, repeated surgery, nephrostomy and/or ureteral stenting [44, 49].
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
- Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Bex A et al (2014) Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma. European Association of Urology (EAU). Available at: http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/10%20Renal%20Cell%20Carcinoma_LR.pdf. Accessed 2015/02/10
- Ljungberg B, Cowan NC, Hanbury DC et al (2010) EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2010 update. Eur Urol 58:398–406PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hindman NM, Kang S, Parikh MS (2014) Common postoperative findings unique to laparoscopic surgery. Radiographics 34:119–138PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Huang WC, Levey AS, Serio AM et al (2006) Chronic kidney disease after nephrectomy in patients with renal cortical tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 7:735–740PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lau WK, Blute ML, Weaver AL et al (2000) Matched comparison of radical nephrectomy vs nephron-sparing surgery in patients with unilateral renal cell carcinoma and a normal contralateral kidney. Mayo Clin Proc 75:1236–1242PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Campero JM, Ramos CG, Valdevenito R et al (2012) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a series of one hundred cases performed by the same surgeon. Urol Ann 4:162–165PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dominguez-Escrig JL, Vasdev N, O’Riordon A et al (2011) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: technical considerations and an update. J Minim Access Surg 7:205–221PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Lane BR et al (2007) Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors. J Urol 178:41–46PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Reifsnyder JE, Ramasamy R, Ng CK et al (2012) Laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy: complication comparison using the Clavien system. JSLS 16:38–44PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Springer C, Hoda MR, Fajkovic H et al (2013) Laparoscopic vs open partial nephrectomy for T1 renal tumours: evaluation of long-term oncological and functional outcomes in 340 patients. BJU Int 111:281–288PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Touma NJ, Matsumoto ED, Kapoor A (2012) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: the McMaster University experience. Can Urol Assoc J 6:233–236PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wheat JC, Roberts WW, Hollenbeck BK et al (2013) Complications of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Urol Oncol 31:57–62PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Liu Z, Wang P, Xia D et al (2013) Comparison between laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy: surgical, oncologic, and functional outcomes. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 29:624–628PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Minervini A, Siena G, Antonelli A et al (2014) Open versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for clinical T1a renal masses: a matched-pair comparison of 280 patients with TRIFECTA outcomes (RECORd Project). World J Urol 32:257–263PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Xu H, Ding Q, Jiang HW (2014) Fewer complications after laparoscopic nephrectomy as compared to the open procedure with the modified Clavien classification system—a retrospective analysis from southern China. World J Surg Oncol 12:242PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Becker A, Pradel L, Kluth L et al (2014) Laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy for clinical T1 renal masses: no impact of surgical approach on perioperative complications and long-term postoperative quality of life. World J Urol 33:421–426PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Klatte T, Shariat SF, Remzi M (2014) Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic cryoablation versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for the treatment of small renal tumors. J Urol 191:1209–1217PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kapoor A, Wang Y, Dishan B et al (2014) Update on cryoablation for treatment of small renal mass: oncologic control, renal function preservation, and rate of complications. Curr Urol Rep 15:396PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Atwell TD, Schmit GD, Boorjian SA et al (2013) Percutaneous ablation of renal masses measuring 3.0 cm and smaller: comparative local control and complications after radiofrequency ablation and cryoablation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:461–466PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Schmit GD, Thompson RH, Kurup AN et al (2013) Usefulness of R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scoring system for predicting outcomes and complications of percutaneous ablation of 751 renal tumors. J Urol 189:30–35PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- El Dib R, Touma NJ, Kapoor A (2012) Cryoablation vs radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis of case series studies. BJU Int 110:510–516PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Israel GM, Hecht E, Bosniak MA (2006) CT and MR imaging of complications of partial nephrectomy. Radiographics 26:1419–1429PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lee MS, Oh YT, Han WK et al (2007) CT findings after nephron-sparing surgery of renal tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:W264–W271PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Saddala P, Ramanathan S, Tirumani SH et al (2015) Complications of minimally invasive procedures of the abdomen and pelvis: a comprehensive update on the clinical and imaging features. Emerg Radiol 22:283-294Google Scholar
- Sarwani NI, Motta Ramirez GA, Remer EM et al (2007) Imaging findings after minimally invasive nephron-sparing renal therapies. Clin Radiol 62:333–339PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Parsons RB, Canter D, Kutikov A et al (2012) RENAL nephrometry scoring system: the radiologist’s perspective. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:W355–W359PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Chapin BF, Delacroix SE Jr, Wood CG (2011) Renal cell carcinoma: what the surgeon and treating physician need to know. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:1255–1262PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Canter D, Kutikov A, Manley B et al (2011) Utility of the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scoring system in objectifying treatment decision-making of the enhancing renal mass. Urology 78:1089–1094PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mucksavage P, McDougall EM, Clayman RV (2011) Laparoscopic transperitoneal nephrectomy for renal cancer: the University of California, Irvine, technique. J Endourol 25:195–200PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Haber GP, Gill IS (2006) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: contemporary technique and outcomes. Eur Urol 49:660–665PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kang N, Niu Y, Zhang J et al (2012) Intraoperative ultrasonography: a useful tool in retrolaparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery. Urol Int 88:338–342PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Summerton DJ, Kitrey ND, Lumen N et al (2012) EAU guidelines on iatrogenic trauma. Eur Urol 62:628–639PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mitropoulos D, Artibani W, Biyani CS et al (2014) Quality assessment of partial nephrectomy complications reporting using EAU standardised quality criteria. Eur Urol 66:522–526PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Simhan J, Smaldone MC, Tsai KJ et al (2011) Objective measures of renal mass anatomic complexity predict rates of major complications following partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 60:724–730PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Reddy UD, Pillai R, Parker RA et al (2014) Prediction of complications after partial nephrectomy by RENAL nephrometry score. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 96:475–479PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Yang CM, Chung HJ, Huang YH et al (2014) Standardized analysis of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy complications with Clavien classification. J Chin Med Assoc 77:637–641PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fardoun T, Chaste D, Oger E et al (2014) Predictive factors of hemorrhagic complications after partial nephrectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol 40:85–89PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ellison JS, Montgomery JS, Hafez KS et al (2013) Association of RENAL nephrometry score with outcomes of minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. Int J Urol 20:564–570PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Liu ZW, Olweny EO, Yin G et al (2013) Prediction of perioperative outcomes following minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: role of the R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score. World J Urol 31:1183–1189PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Long JA, Arnoux V, Fiard G et al (2013) External validation of the RENAL nephrometry score in renal tumours treated by partial nephrectomy. BJU Int 111:233–239PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hayn MH, Schwaab T, Underwood W et al (2011) RENAL nephrometry score predicts surgical outcomes of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. BJU Int 108:876–881PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mathieu R, Verhoest G, Droupy S et al (2013) Predictive factors of complications after robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a retrospective multicentre study. BJU Int 112:E283–E289PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kruck S, Anastasiadis AG, Walcher U et al (2012) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: risk stratification according to patient and tumor characteristics. World J Urol 30:639–646PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cano Alonso R, Borruel Nacenta S, Diez Martinez P et al (2009) Kidney in danger: CT findings of blunt and penetrating renal trauma. Radiographics 29:2033–2053View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Thomsen HS, Webb JAW (eds) (2009) Contrast media: safety issues and ESUR guidelines. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Stacul F, van der Molen AJ, Reimer P et al (2011) Contrast induced nephropathy: updated ESUR Contrast Media Safety Committee guidelines. Eur Radiol 21:2527–2541PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kekelidze M, Dwarkasing RS, Dijkshoorn ML et al (2010) Kidney and urinary tract imaging: triple-bolus multidetector CT urography as a one-stop shop—protocol design, opacification, and image quality analysis. Radiology 255:508–516PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Van Der Molen AJ, Cowan NC, Mueller-Lisse UG et al (2008) CT urography: definition, indications and techniques. A guideline for clinical practice. Eur Radiol 18:4–17View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Titton RL, Gervais DA, Hahn PF et al (2003) Urine leaks and urinomas: diagnosis and imaging-guided intervention. Radiographics 23:1133–1147PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hope WW, Heniford BT, Norton HJ et al (2009) Duration and clinical significance of radiographically detected “free air” after laparoscopic nephrectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 19:415–418PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Borofsky S, Taffel M, Khati N et al (2015) The emergency room diagnosis of gastrointestinal tract perforation: the role of CT. Emerg Radiol 22:315-327Google Scholar
- Tonolini M, Campari A, Bianco R (2012) Common and unusual diseases involving the iliopsoas muscle compartment: spectrum of cross-sectional imaging findings. Abdom Imaging 37:118–139PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cohenpour M, Strauss S, Gottlieb P et al (2007) Pseudoaneurysm of the renal artery following partial nephrectomy: imaging findings and coil embolization. Clin Radiol 62:1104–1109PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Albani JM, Novick AC (2003) Renal artery pseudoaneurysm after partial nephrectomy: three case reports and a literature review. Urology 62:227–231PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ierardi AM, Floridi C, Fontana F et al (2014) Transcatheter embolisation of iatrogenic renal vascular injuries. Radiol Med 119:261–268PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hatzidakis A, Rossi M, Mamoulakis C et al (2014) Management of renal arteriovenous malformations: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging 5:523–530PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Stunell H, Buckley O, Feeney J et al (2007) Imaging of acute pyelonephritis in the adult. Eur Radiol 17:1820–1828PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Craig WD, Wagner BJ, Travis MD (2008) Pyelonephritis: radiologic-pathologic review. Radiographics 28:255–277, quiz 327–258 PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar