OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the different surgical approaches of two centers on outcomes of live donor laparoscopic nephrectomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The first 98 patients of each centre who underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) or hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) were included in the study. The following data were used for analyses: donor age, weight, height, body mass index (BMI), transfusion requirement, operative time, ischemia time and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Median age, BMI, operation time and estimated blood loss (EBL) was 47.29 years, 27.91 kg/m2, 110.73 minutes, and 78.95 mL, respectively. Operation time was significantly shorter in the HALDN group (t=-3.554, p<0.01). EBL was not significantly different between the two groups. The difference in hospitalization time and warm ischemia times (WIT) was not significant between the two surgical technique groups (t=-1.554, t=1.258; p>0.05). No statistically significant difference was detected in the intraoperative and postoperative complication rates between two groups (p>0.05). The postoperative complication rate was 7.14% (n=7) and 6.12% (n=6) in the LDN and HALDN groups, respectively. There were two patients with conversion to open surgery in the HALDN group because of lumbar vein injury. CONCLUSION: The operative and postoperative outcomes for the two techniques were found to be similar. The HALDN technique preserves the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. In experienced urologic laparoscopy centres both techniques promise similar success rates.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the different surgical approaches of two centers on outcomes of live donor laparoscopic nephrectomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The first 98 patients of each centre who underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) or hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) were included in the study. The following data were used for analyses: donor age, weight, height, body mass index (BMI), transfusion requirement, operative time, ischemia time and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Median age, BMI, operation time and estimated blood loss (EBL) was 47.29 years, 27.91 kg/m2, 110.73 minutes, and 78.95 mL, respectively. Operation time was significantly shorter in the HALDN group (t=-3.554, p<0.01). EBL was not significantly different between the two groups. The difference in hospitalization time and warm ischemia times (WIT) was not significant between the two surgical technique groups (t=-1.554, t=1.258; p>0.05). No statistically significant difference was detected in the intraoperative and postoperative complication rates between two groups (p>0.05). The postoperative complication rate was 7.14% (n=7) and 6.12% (n=6) in the LDN and HALDN groups, respectively. There were two patients with conversion to open surgery in the HALDN group because of lumbar vein injury. CONCLUSION: The operative and postoperative outcomes for the two techniques were found to be similar. The HALDN technique preserves the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. In experienced urologic laparoscopy centres both techniques promise similar success rates.
Authors: Ingolf A Turk; Serdar Deger; John W Davis; Markus Giesing; Michael D Fabrizio; Bernd Schönberger; Gerald H Jordan; Stefan A Loening Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Joseph R Leventhal; Burak Kocak; Paolo R O Salvalaggio; Alan J Koffron; Talia B Baker; Dixon B Kaufman; Jonathan P Fryer; Michael M Abecassis; Frank P Stuart Journal: Surgery Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Denise M D Özdemir-van Brunschot; Giel G Koning; Kees C J H M van Laarhoven; Mehmet Ergün; Sharon B C E van Horne; Maroeska M Rovers; Michiel C Warlé Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-27 Impact factor: 3.240