You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Reminder of important clinical lesson
CASE REPORT
Role of transoesophageal echocardiography in renal cell carcinoma: a brief review
  1. Chitra Rajeswari Thangaswamy1,
  2. Ramanitharan Manikandan2,
  3. Sai Chandran Bathala Vedagiri3
  1. 1Department of Anaesthesiology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry, Tamilnadu, India
  2. 2Department of Urology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry, Tamilnadu, India
  3. 3Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry, Tamilnadu, India
  1. Correspondence to Dr Chitra Rajeswari Thangaswamy, dr.chitrarajeswari{at}gmail.com

Summary

Transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) is regularly used in cardiac and also increasingly in non-cardiac surgeries. It has a leading role in the perioperative management of renal cell carcinoma with tumour extension into inferior vena cava. We report two cases in which TOE was of immense help for patient management. This report highlights the two cases where intraoperative TOE was of immense help to establish diagnosis, to modify surgical plan, to guide the surgeon during clamp placement, to monitor cardiac function, to rule out tumour embolism and to confirm the complete removal of tumour thrombus.

  • Anaesthesia
  • Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Venous Thromboembolism
  • Vascular Surgery
  • Urological Surgery

https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2017-221532

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All authors were involved in the case management and writing the manuscript. CRT had written the manuscript. RM and SCBV had edited and modified the surgical details. CRT was the anaesthesiologist. RM was the urologist. SCBV was the cardiovascular surgeon. All authors have read the manuscript and accepted for submission.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Obtained.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.