OBJECTIVE: Compare two different techniques for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN), related to the operative costs and learning curve. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between April/2000 and October/2003, 61 patients were submitted to LDN in 2 different reference centers in kidney transplantation. At center A (CA), 11 patients were operated by a pure transperitoneal approach, using Hem-O-Lok clips for the renal pedicle control and the specimens were retrieved manually, without using endobags. At center B (CB), 50 patients were also operated by a pure transperitoneal approach, but the renal pedicles were controlled with endo-GIA appliers and the specimens were retrieved using endobags. RESULTS: Operative time (231 +/- 39 min vs. 179 +/- 30 min; p < 0.000), warm ischemia time (5.85 +/- 2.85 min vs. 3.84 +/- 3.84 min; p = 0.002) and blood loss (214 +/- 98 mL vs. 141 +/- 82 mL; p = 0.02) were statistically better in CB, when compared to CA. Discharge time was similar in both centers. One major complication was observed in both centers, leading to an open conversion in CA (9.1%). One donor death occurred in CB (2%). Regarding the recipients, no statistical difference was observed in all parameters analyzed. There was an economy of US$1.440 in each procedure performed in CA, when compared to CB. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the learning curve, the technique adopted by CA, showed no deleterious results to the donors and recipients when compared with the CB. On the other hand, this technique was cheaper than the technique performed in the CB, representing an attractive alternative for LDN, mainly in developing centers.
OBJECTIVE: Compare two different techniques for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN), related to the operative costs and learning curve. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between April/2000 and October/2003, 61 patients were submitted to LDN in 2 different reference centers in kidney transplantation. At center A (CA), 11 patients were operated by a pure transperitoneal approach, using Hem-O-Lok clips for the renal pedicle control and the specimens were retrieved manually, without using endobags. At center B (CB), 50 patients were also operated by a pure transperitoneal approach, but the renal pedicles were controlled with endo-GIA appliers and the specimens were retrieved using endobags. RESULTS: Operative time (231 +/- 39 min vs. 179 +/- 30 min; p < 0.000), warm ischemia time (5.85 +/- 2.85 min vs. 3.84 +/- 3.84 min; p = 0.002) and blood loss (214 +/- 98 mL vs. 141 +/- 82 mL; p = 0.02) were statistically better in CB, when compared to CA. Discharge time was similar in both centers. One major complication was observed in both centers, leading to an open conversion in CA (9.1%). One donordeath occurred in CB (2%). Regarding the recipients, no statistical difference was observed in all parameters analyzed. There was an economy of US$1.440 in each procedure performed in CA, when compared to CB. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the learning curve, the technique adopted by CA, showed no deleterious results to the donors and recipients when compared with the CB. On the other hand, this technique was cheaper than the technique performed in the CB, representing an attractive alternative for LDN, mainly in developing centers.
Authors: Maximilian Brunotte; Sebastian Rademacher; Justine Weber; Elisabeth Sucher; Andri Lederer; Hans-Michael Hau; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Daniel Seehofer; Robert Sucher Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2020-03