OBJECTIVE: To test the effect of surgeon experience on donor and recipient outcomes after laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN). Results of a LLDN expert were compared with those of an LLDN novice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between October 2008 and October 2010 the last 20 cases of a series of 130 consecutive LLDNs, performed by an expert (EXP) were compared with the first 20 cases of an LLDN novice (NOV). Donor and recipient outcomes were evaluated. The novice was mentored by the expert during his initial four LLDN cases. RESULTS: Donor and recipient demographics were not different between the two surgeon groups. Total operating time and warm ischaemia time during LLDN was significantly longer in the NOV group compared with the EXP group (273 min vs 147 min and 213 s vs 162 s, respectively). The incidence of donor complications was low in both groups. Length of hospital stay among donors did not differ between groups. Although delayed graft function, rejection rates and postoperative serum creatinine levels indicated slightly poorer recipient outcomes in the NOV group, differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Mentoring by an experienced urological laparoscopist may help an LLDN novice to generate acceptable donor and recipient outcomes. Whether or not prolonged operating times and warm ischaemia times during the early phase of an LLDN experience are risk factors for impaired graft function needs further evaluation.
OBJECTIVE: To test the effect of surgeon experience on donor and recipient outcomes after laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN). Results of a LLDN expert were compared with those of an LLDN novice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between October 2008 and October 2010 the last 20 cases of a series of 130 consecutive LLDNs, performed by an expert (EXP) were compared with the first 20 cases of an LLDN novice (NOV). Donor and recipient outcomes were evaluated. The novice was mentored by the expert during his initial four LLDN cases. RESULTS:Donor and recipient demographics were not different between the two surgeon groups. Total operating time and warm ischaemia time during LLDN was significantly longer in the NOV group compared with the EXP group (273 min vs 147 min and 213 s vs 162 s, respectively). The incidence of donor complications was low in both groups. Length of hospital stay among donors did not differ between groups. Although delayed graft function, rejection rates and postoperative serum creatinine levels indicated slightly poorer recipient outcomes in the NOV group, differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Mentoring by an experienced urological laparoscopist may help an LLDN novice to generate acceptable donor and recipient outcomes. Whether or not prolonged operating times and warm ischaemia times during the early phase of an LLDN experience are risk factors for impaired graft function needs further evaluation.
Authors: Denise M D Özdemir-van Brunschot; Michiel C Warlé; Michel F van der Jagt; Janneke P C Grutters; Sharon B C E van Horne; Heinrich J Kloke; Johannes A van der Vliet; Johan F Langenhuijsen; Frank C d'Ancona Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-11-02 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Josef Mang; Linda Hennig; Nadine Biernath; Lutz Liefeldt; Anna Bichmann; Bernhard Ralla; Andreas Maxeiner; Robert Peters; Hannes Cash; Klemens Budde; Frank Friedersdorff Journal: Urol Int Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Carlos Garcia-Ochoa; Liane S Feldman; Christopher Nguan; Mauricio Monroy-Cuadros; Jennifer Arnold; Neil Boudville; Meaghan Cuerden; Christine Dipchand; Michael Eng; John Gill; William Gourlay; Martin Karpinski; Scott Klarenbach; Greg Knoll; Krista L Lentine; Charmaine E Lok; Patrick Luke; G V Ramesh Prasad; Alp Sener; Jessica M Sontrop; Leroy Storsley; Darin Treleaven; Amit X Garg Journal: Can J Kidney Health Dis Date: 2019-07-18