Literature DB >> 28861305

Laparoscopic transperitoneal and retroperitoneal simple nephrectomy: The impact of etiological factors of the results of surgical treatment.

Rauf Naghiyev1, Sudeyf Imamverdiyev1, Elchin Efendiyev1, Öner Şanlı2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study compares the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic simple nephrectomy (LSN) in patients with urinary stone disease (USD) in comparison with LSNs performed for other etiological factors.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: 115 LSNs were identified from the two teaching hospitals' database. Depending on the etiological factors, patients were stratified in 2 groups. Group 1 consisted of 63 (mean age 44.8±1.7 [21-71] years) patients; where the cause of non-functioning kidney was USD. Meanwhile, Group 2 included 52 (mean age was 43.6±2.0 [19-78] years) patients; who underwent LSN because of other benign diseases. In both groups, a standardized transabdominal or retroperitoneal approach was used according to the discretion of the attending surgeon. Two groups were compared statistically in terms of perioperative parameters and standardized surgical complications.
RESULTS: The use of transperitoneal approach was higher in Group 1 (69.8% vs. 30.2%) compared to Group 2 (51.9% vs. 48.1%). Elective open conversion was needed in 3 and 2 patients in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. The results for mean operative time (108.9±4.0 min vs. 106.7±5.0), estimated blood loss (92.5±8.2 vs. 86.8±10.1 mL) and length of hospital stay (4.1±0.33 vs. 3.85±0.42 days) were similar between the groups. Despite intraoperative complications were similar between the groups, overall post-operative complications were significantly higher (17.5% vs. 3.8%) in Group 1. However, the rate of significant complications (Clavien 3-5) was similar between the groups.
CONCLUSION: The present study revealed that perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing LSN for USD are similar to those seen in patients undergoing LSN for other etiological factors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Complication; laparoscopy; nephrectomy; transperitoneal

Year:  2017        PMID: 28861305      PMCID: PMC5562252          DOI: 10.5152/tud.2017.21855

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Turk J Urol        ISSN: 2149-3235


  21 in total

1.  Proposal for a "European Scoring System for Laparoscopic Operations in Urology".

Authors:  B Guillonneau; C C Abbou; J D Doublet; R Gaston; G Janetschek; A Mandressi; J J Rassweiler; G Vallancien
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 2.  Laparascopic nephrectomy: different techniques and approaches.

Authors:  Tania González León
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Laparoscopic nephrectomy for infected, obstructed and non-functioning kidneys.

Authors:  Ran Katz; Dov Pode; Dragan Golijanin; Ofer N Gofrit; Ofer Z Shenfeld; Amos Shapiro; Petachia Reissman
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 1.719

4.  Simple Laparoscopic Nephrectomy in Stone Disease: Not Always Simple.

Authors:  Oriol Angerri; Juan Manuel López; Francisco Sánchez-Martin; Félix Millán-Rodriguez; Antonio Rosales; Humberto Villavicencio
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2016-09-14       Impact factor: 2.942

5.  First prize: Standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy versus laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy: a randomized comparative study.

Authors:  Abraham Kurien; Sujata Rajapurkar; Lokesh Sinha; Shashikant Mishra; Arvind Ganpule; Veeramani Muthu; Ravindra Sabnis; Mahesh Desai
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2011-01-03       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 6.  Urinary Stone Disease: Progress, Status, and Needs.

Authors:  Ziya Kirkali; Rebekah Rasooly; Robert A Star; Griffin P Rodgers
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2015-07-17       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States.

Authors:  Charles D Scales; Alexandria C Smith; Janet M Hanley; Christopher S Saigal
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2012-03-31       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Laparoscopic nephrectomy for benign and inflammatory conditions.

Authors:  T Manohar; Mihir Desai; Mahesh Desai
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 2.942

9.  Laparoscopic nephrectomy in patients undergoing hemodialysis treatment.

Authors:  Oner Sanli; Tzevat Tefik; Mazhar Ortac; Meltem Karadeniz; Tayfun Oktar; Ismet Nane; Murat Tunc
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2010 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.172

10.  Laparoscopic nephrectomy for xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis--are there predictive factors for success?

Authors:  Marcelo Lima; Ricardo Miyaoka; Juliano Moro; Carlos D'Ancona
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 2.365

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Perianesthetic Management of Laparoscopic Kidney Surgery.

Authors:  Georges Nasrallah; Fouad G Souki
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2018-01-18       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Challenges and management of laparoscopic treatment of pyonephrosis caused by calculi.

Authors:  Jun Liu; Liang Chen; Lizhe An; Kai Ma; Xiongjun Ye; Qingquan Xu; Xiaobo Huang; Liulin Xiong
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2020-12-10       Impact factor: 2.102

3.  Retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy versus open surgery for non-tuberculous pyonephrotic nonfunctioning kidney: a single-center experience.

Authors:  Xinguang Wang; Kun Tang; Zhiqiang Chen; Hailang Liu; Ejun Peng; Ding Xia
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-03
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.