OBJECTIVE: During the learning curve for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN), donor morbidity and poorer graft function may be increased. To minimize these risks, a dedicated team of laparoscopic, urologic and transplant specialists worked together to introduce the technique. This study was undertaken to validate this approach by comparing donor and recipient outcomes and studying our learning curve during the transition from open (OLDN) to LLDN. METHODS: We compared 59 LLDNs with 34 OLDNs performed for adult recipients. Data were collected prospectively for LLDN and retrospectively for OLDN. We compared donor outcomes and recipient graft function in the 2 groups, and we used the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method to generate learning curves; p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: From the donor standpoint, the complication rate was 10% in the laparoscopic group, compared with 21% in the open group. Length of stay was shorter after LLDN (3 v. 5 d, p < 0.001). Among the recipients, there were no significant differences in the incidences of ureteral complications, delayed graft function (DGF), creatinine levels, acute rejection or patient and graft survival. When we used the incidence of DGF after OLDN as a benchmark, CUSUM analysis revealed a downward inflection point for DGF after 30 cases, consistent with an improvement in performance. CONCLUSION: At our institution, a team approach has allowed the safe introduction of LLDN without a significant negative impact on recipient outcomes and with a reduction in donor length of stay. Using DGF as an outcome, we observed improved performance after 30 cases.
OBJECTIVE: During the learning curve for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN), donor morbidity and poorer graft function may be increased. To minimize these risks, a dedicated team of laparoscopic, urologic and transplant specialists worked together to introduce the technique. This study was undertaken to validate this approach by comparing donor and recipient outcomes and studying our learning curve during the transition from open (OLDN) to LLDN. METHODS: We compared 59 LLDNs with 34 OLDNs performed for adult recipients. Data were collected prospectively for LLDN and retrospectively for OLDN. We compared donor outcomes and recipient graft function in the 2 groups, and we used the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method to generate learning curves; p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: From the donor standpoint, the complication rate was 10% in the laparoscopic group, compared with 21% in the open group. Length of stay was shorter after LLDN (3 v. 5 d, p < 0.001). Among the recipients, there were no significant differences in the incidences of ureteral complications, delayed graft function (DGF), creatinine levels, acute rejection or patient and graft survival. When we used the incidence of DGF after OLDN as a benchmark, CUSUM analysis revealed a downward inflection point for DGF after 30 cases, consistent with an improvement in performance. CONCLUSION: At our institution, a team approach has allowed the safe introduction of LLDN without a significant negative impact on recipient outcomes and with a reduction in donor length of stay. Using DGF as an outcome, we observed improved performance after 30 cases.
Authors: R A Montgomery; L R Kavoussi; L Su; V Sinkov; C Cohen; W R Maley; J F Burdick; J Markowitz; L E Ratner Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2001 Feb-Mar Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: S C Jacobs; E Cho; B J Dunkin; J L Flowers; E Schweitzer; C Cangro; J Fink; A Farney; B Philosophe; B Jarrell; S T Bartlett Journal: J Urol Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: J S Wolf ; R M Merion; A B Leichtman; D A Campbell; J C Magee; J D Punch; J G Turcotte; J W Konnak Journal: Transplantation Date: 2001-07-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: J M Nogueira; C B Cangro; J C Fink; E Schweitzer; A Wiland; D K Klassen; J Gardner; J Flowers; S Jacobs; E Cho; B Philosophe; S T Bartlett; M R Weir Journal: Transplantation Date: 1999-03-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: J R Leventhal; R K Deeik; R J Joehl; R V Rege; C H Herman; J P Fryer; D Kaufman; M Abecassis; F P Stuart Journal: Transplantation Date: 2000-08-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: E J Schweitzer; J Wilson; S Jacobs; C H Machan; B Philosophe; A Farney; J Colonna; B E Jarrell; S T Bartlett Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Gustavo Vedana; Filipe G Cardoso; Alexandre S Marcon; Licio E K Araújo; Matheus Zanon; Daniella C Birriel; Guilherme Watte; Albert S Jun Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 1.779
Authors: Ngan N Lam; Christine Dipchand; Marie-Chantal Fortin; Bethany J Foster; Anand Ghanekar; Isabelle Houde; Bryce Kiberd; Scott Klarenbach; Greg A Knoll; David Landsberg; Patrick P Luke; Rahul Mainra; Sunita K Singh; Leroy Storsley; Jagbir Gill Journal: Can J Kidney Health Dis Date: 2020-06-09
Authors: Khaled Abdulla Telha; Mohamed Abdullah Al Kataa; Khaled Mohamed Al-Kohlany; Tawfik Hassen Al Badany; Ibrahim Hussen Alnono Journal: Turk J Urol Date: 2017-12-01