Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: technique and outcome, a single-center experience

Abstract Background Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has been established as a surgical standard for living kidney donation. The aim of this work is to report our own experience with LDN regarding outcome and technique. Methods We prospectively identified 110 LDN cases between May 2017 and April 2020. Donor case files and operative notes were analyzed for age, sex, laterality, body mass index, warm ischemia time (WIT), intraoperative and postoperative complications, operative time, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Data were analyzed using SPSS version 10 (SPSS: An IBM Company, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, the USA). Results The mean age was 38 years, and 77% were males. Three cases (2.72%) required conversion to conventional open donor nephrectomy (ODN). Nevertheless, none of cases required intraoperative blood transfusion. The mean WIT was 2.6 min. Two cases (1.8%) developed major vascular injury (Clavien grade IIIb) and required conversion to ODN. Postoperatively, one patient (0.9%) needed transfusion of one unit of packed RBCs (Clavien grade II). The mean LOS was 2 days. Most common early postoperative complication was ileus (Clavien grade II) that developed in 4 (3.6%) cases. Incisional hernia (Clavien grade IIIb) was encountered in two (1.8%) cases. Two (1.8%) cases developed wound infection at the incision site and treated conservatively (Clavien grade I). Conclusions LDN is a safe technique with accepted intraoperative and postoperative morbidity. It offers short hospital stay, better cosmesis and early convalescence. In experienced hands, it can effectively deal with various vascular and ureteral anomalies without compromising early graft function.

Download Full-text

Comparison of Outcomes of Open versus Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy in Nepal

Journal of Institute of Medicine ◽

10.3126/jiom.v42i1.37422 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 42 (1) ◽

pp. 31-35

Author(s):

Prem R Sigdel ◽

Diwas Gnyawali ◽

Bipendra DK Rai ◽

Pawan Dhital ◽

Purushottam Parajuli ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hospital Stay ◽

Demographic Data ◽

Graft Function ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Warm Ischemia ◽

Donor Nephrectomy ◽

Warm Ischemia Time ◽

Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy ◽

Ischemia Time ◽

Living Donor Nephrectomy

Introduction Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is the gold standard for kidney retrieval in live donors. Until recently, donor nephrectomies were performed only by open technique in Nepal. There is no information on the experience and outcomes of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in Nepal. The study was done to compare the outcomes among donors undergoing open and laparoscopic nephrectomies, and to compare the graft related outcomes between the two groups receiving these kidneys. MethodsIn this retrospective study, 44 kidney donors from March 2019 to October 2019 were analyzed. Donors were divided into 2 groups: open donor nephrectomy (ODN) and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). Parameters for analysis included demographic data, warm ischemia time, surgery time and length of hospital stay. Data on early graft function and complications in recipients till 30th post-operative day were compared. ResultsThere were 22 donors each in the ODN and LDN groups. Baseline characteristics of the donors were comparable between two groups. Mean surgery duration (183.55±43.31 minutes vs 117.73±18.75 minutes) and first warm ischemia time (11.22±4.34 minutes vs 2.3±0.8 minutes) was significantly high in LDN. Hemoglobin drop, post-operative complications in donors, creatinine of donors at discharge, mean hospital stay, graft function at one month and complications in recipients were comparable among ODN and LDN. Pain score in 1st post-operative day was comparable between two groups, however, pain was significantly less in second post-operative day in LDN. ConclusionLaparoscopic donor nephrectomy is feasible in Nepal and associated with acceptable morbidity and graft function when compared to ODN.

Download Full-text

Endoscopic, Single-Session Management of Encrusted, Forgotten Ureteral Stents

Medicina ◽

10.3390/medicina55030058 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 55 (3) ◽

pp. 58 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Volkan Ulker ◽

Orcun Celik

Keyword(s):

Hospital Stay ◽

Treatment Options ◽

Operating Time ◽

Operation Time ◽

Ureteral Stents ◽

Single Session ◽

Extracorporeal Shock Wave ◽

Clavien Grade ◽

Grade Ii ◽

The Mean

Background and Objectives: Remained or forgotten ureteral double-J stents may cause serious complications. Removing of an encrusted, forgotten stent can be challenging. We present our experience with heavily encrusted ureteral stents and discuss the endourologic treatment options as well as their effectivity. Materials and Methods: Eleven men and six women (mean 48.58 ± 14.48 years of age) with 18 encrusted forgotten stents (mean 16.4 ± 13.25 months of indwelling) were treated at our clinic. All patients underwent the operation after negative urine cultures were obtained. Their medical records were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed in terms of number of interventions required to remove the stent, operation time, complications, hospital stay and stone-free rate. Results: According to the Forgotten-Encrusted-Calcified (FECal) classification, the most common form of stent encrustation was grade III (64.7%) and 17.6% of the stents were fragmented. Four of 17 patients were initially treated with extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. The patients required a mean of two endoscopic interventions for removing the encrusted stent and all stents were removed endoscopically in a single session. The mean operating time was 63.3 ± 41.8 minutes. Cystolithotripsy followed by ureteroscopy was the most common intervention (41.1%). Of the 17 patients, peroperative and postoperative complications were Clavien grade I in two, grade II in two and grade IIIb in one. The mean hospital stay was 1.3 ± 0.99 days. All patients were stone-free after a month of stent removal. Conclusions: The endourological removal of the encrusted forgotten stents in a single session is feasible and effective with a minimal morbidity. The treatment strategy should be to minimize the number of interventions.

Download Full-text

Study on outcome of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

International Surgery Journal ◽

10.18203/2349-2902.isj20173424 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 4 (8) ◽

pp. 2811

Author(s):

Subha Kanesh S. K. ◽

Govindarajan P.

Keyword(s):

Blood Loss ◽

Hospital Stay ◽

Operating Time ◽

Donor Nephrectomy ◽

Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy ◽

Analgesic Requirement ◽

Ischemic Time ◽

Medical College ◽

Duration Of Hospital Stay ◽

The Mean

Background: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is being performed in increasing numbers since 1995. Now laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has been accepted as good alternate to open procedure as seen in various other abdominal surgeries. This was the basis of the present study. So, the present study was designed to analyse and compare the outcome of Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and Open donor nephrectomies.Methods: The prospective and observational study was conducted at Stanley Medical College in Department of Urology in 61 Patients aged between 25-50 years who underwent left donor nephrectomy The Mean operating time, warm ischemic time, blood loss, analgesic requirement and duration of hospital stay were recorded and analysed statistically.Results: Out of 61 donor nephrectomies, 16 kidneys harvested by laparoscopic method with only 2 (12%) conversion to open due bleeding. Mean operating time was 179.9±47.6 minutes. Present study showed mean blood loss of (163±93 ml). Analgesic requirement of the LDN (mean 1.25 days) was significantly lower when compared to open group (mean 3.75 days). The present study shows duration of hospital stay was lower in LDN (mean 5.1days).Conclusions: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is an effective, safe and rewarding though it is time consuming and technically challenging. The analgesic requirement, duration of hospital stay and the blood loss were less with the laparoscopic surgery. Results of graft functioning of kidneys in both procedures were equivalent. So laparoscopic donor nephrectomy can be made as the procedure of choice in future.

Download Full-text

A single-center experience of steroid therapy for COVID-19 management

10.22541/au.161035233.37590270/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Aamir Shaukat ◽

Ahmad Ayaz Sabri ◽

Umair Ahmed ◽

Nazir Ahmad ◽

Dilshad Muhammad ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hospital Stay ◽

Recovery Rate ◽

Primary Outcome ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

P Value ◽

Single Center Experience ◽

Group 4 ◽

Group I ◽

The Mean

Aim: There is an emerging role of steroids in the management of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the outcome of COVID-19 patients (recovery versus mortality) who were treated with steroids with those who were not treated with steroids during their course of hospital stay. Methods: A retrospective analysis of all moderately to severely ill COVID-19 patients, meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria, admitted to our center during the study period of four months, was performed. The patients were categorized into two groups: Group I included 25 patients who were given steroids, and Group II also included 25 patients who were not given any steroids during their hospital stay. The primary outcome (recovery versus mortality), length of hospital stay as well as other features were compared between the two groups. Results: The mean length of hospital stay was 9.3 days in the steroids group and 10.9 days in the non-steroids group with a p value of 0.249. None of the patients was shifted to a ventilator in either group. One patient in the steroids group (4%) and two patients in the non-steroids group (8%) needed to be put on high flow nasal cannula. One patient died in the steroids group with a recovery rate of 96%, while two patients died in the non-steroids group with a recovery rate of 92% (p value 0.552). Conclusion: Treatment with steroids in moderately to severely ill COVID-19 patients did not decrease the length of hospital stay or mortality in our study.

Download Full-text

Back-to-back comparison of mini-open vs. laparoscopic technique for living kidney donation

Canadian Urological Association Journal ◽

10.5489/cuaj.3725 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 10 (7-8) ◽

pp. 253 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Christie Rampersad ◽

Premal Patel ◽

Joshua Koulack ◽

Thomas McGregor

Keyword(s):

Blood Loss ◽

Hospital Stay ◽

Intraoperative Complications ◽

Graft Function ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Donor Nephrectomy ◽

Open Approach ◽

Intraoperative Complication ◽

Estimated Blood Loss ◽

Mini Open

Introduction: Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy is the standard of care at high-volume renal transplant centres, with benefits over the open approach well-documented in the literature. Herein, we present a retrospective analysis of our single-institution donor nephrectomy series comparing the mini-open donor nephrectomy (mini-ODN) to the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) with regards to operative, donor, and recipient outcomes.Methods: From 2007‒2011, there were 89 cases of mini-ODN, at which point our centre transitioned to LDN; 94 cases were performed from 2011‒2014. In total, 366 patients were reviewed, including donor and recipient pairs. Donor and recipient demographics, intraoperative data, postoperative donor recovery, recipient graft outcomes, and financial cost were assessed comparing the surgical approaches.Results: We demonstrate a reduced estimated blood loss (347.83 vs. 90.3 cc), lower intraoperative complication rate (4 vs. 11) and shorter length of hospital stay (2.4 vs. 3.3 days) for patients in the LDN group. Operative time was significantly longer for the LDN group (108.4 vs. 165.9 minutes), although this did not translate to a longer warm ischemia time (mean 2.0 minutes for each group). The rate of delayed graft function and recipient 12-month creatinine were comparable for ODN and LND. Overall cost of LDN was $684 higher for an uncomplicated admission.Conclusions: Despite a longer surgical time and higher upfront cost, our study supports that LDN yields several advantages over the mini-ODN, with a lower estimated blood loss, fewer intraoperative complications, and shorter length of hospital stay, all while maintaining excellent renal allograft outcomes.

Download Full-text

Hem-o-lok clips are safe and efficacious for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Preliminary results of a single center experience

10.52768/jjgastro/1020 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 1 (4) ◽

Author(s):

Gaetano Poillucci ◽

◽

Francesca Frangella ◽

Piero Liberatore ◽

Renato De Angelis ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy ◽

Retrospective Study ◽

Hospital Stay ◽

Gallbladder Disease ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Complication Rates ◽

Biliary Leakage ◽

Single Center Experience ◽

The Mean ◽

Titanium Clips

Introduction: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the outcomes after laparoscopic cholecystectomy using titanium clips or Hem-o-lok polymeric clips to close cystic artery and cystic duct. Methods: A total of 154 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder disease from January 2019 to December 2019 at the Department of Surgery of the San Giovanni Addolorata Hospital in Rome (Italy) were studied retrospectively. In 100 patients, titanium clips were used, while Hem-o-lok clips were used in 54 patients. In the two groups, patients' demographic characteristics, laboratory tests and postoperative complications were analyzed. Results: The mean length of hospital stay was shorter in the Hem-o-lok group compared to the titanium clips group (2.0 SD0.7 vs. 3.6 SD5.5, p < 0.05). The overall complication rates for the titanium clips and the Hem-o-lock clips groups were 9% and 0% 7 days after surgery (p < 0.05), 10% and 9.3% 30 days after surgery, 13% and 16.7% 180 days after surgery. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the typology of complications. Conclusion: Based on our results, Hem-o-lock have better postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder disease in terms of complication rate 7 days after surgery and in terms of mean length of hospital stay. Keywords: laparoscopic cholecystectomy; Hem-O-Lok polymeric clips; titanium clips; biliary leakage; retrospective study.

Download Full-text

Pilonidal Sinus: How to Choose Between Excision and Open Granulation Versus Excision and Primary Closure?

Swiss Surgery ◽

10.1024/1023-9332.8.6.255 ◽

2002 ◽

Vol 8 (6) ◽

pp. 255-258 ◽

Cited By ~ 28

Author(s):

Perruchoud ◽

Vuilleumier ◽

Givel

Keyword(s):

Hospital Stay ◽

Pilonidal Sinus ◽

Primary Closure ◽

Average Length ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Healing Time ◽

Incision And Drainage ◽

The Mean ◽

Primary Healing

Aims: The purpose of this study was to evaluate excision and open granulation versus excision and primary closure as treatments for pilonidal sinus. Subjects and methods: We evaluated a group of 141 patients operated on for a pilonidal sinus between 1991 and 1995. Ninety patients were treated by excision and open granulation, 34 patients by excision and primary closure and 17 patients by incision and drainage, as a unique treatment of an infected pilonidal sinus. Results: The first group, receiving treatment of excision and open granulation, experienced the following outcomes: average length of hospital stay, four days; average healing time; 72 days; average number of post-operative ambulatory visits, 40; average off-work delay, 38 days; and average follow-up time, 43 months. There were five recurrences (6%) in this group during the follow-up period. For the second group treated by excision and primary closure, the corresponding outcome measurements were as follows: average length of hospital stay, four days; average healing time, 23 days; primary healing failure rate, 9%; average number of post-operative ambulatory visits, 6; average off-work delay, 21 days. The average follow-up time was 34 months, and two recurrences (6%) were observed during the follow-up period. In the third group, seventeen patients benefited from an incision and drainage as unique treatment. The mean follow-up was 37 months. Five recurrences (29%) were noticed, requiring a new operation in all the cases. Discussion and conclusion: This series of 141 patients is too limited to permit final conclusions to be drawn concerning significant advantages of one form of treatment compared to the other. Nevertheless, primary closure offers the advantages of quicker healing time, fewer post-operative visits and shorter time off work. When a primary closure can be carried out, it should be routinely considered for socio-economical and comfort reasons.

Download Full-text

Propensity-adjusted cost analysis of radial versus femoral access for neuroendovascular procedures

Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery ◽

10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-016728 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. neurintsurg-2020-016728

Author(s):

Joshua S Catapano ◽

Andrew F Ducruet ◽

Stefan W Koester ◽

Tyler S Cole ◽

Jacob F Baranoski ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hospital Stay ◽

Hospital Costs ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Diagnostic Procedures ◽

Femoral Access ◽

Catheter Size ◽

The Mean ◽

The Difference ◽

Procedure Type ◽

Angiographic Findings

BackgroundTransradial artery (TRA) access for neuroendovascular procedures is associated with fewer complications than transfemoral artery (TFA) access. This study compares hospital costs associated with TRA access to those associated with TFA access for neurointerventions.MethodsElective neuroendovascular procedures at a single center were retrospectively analyzed from October 1, 2018 to May 31, 2019. Hospital costs for each procedure were obtained from the hospital financial department. The primary outcome was the difference in the mean hospital costs after propensity adjustment between patients who underwent TRA compared with TFA access.ResultsOf the 338 elective procedures included, 63 (19%) were performed through TRA versus 275 (81%) through TFA access. Diagnostic procedures were more common in the TRA cohort (51 of 63, 81%) compared with the TFA cohort (197 of 275, 72%), but the difference was not significant (p=0.48). The TRA cohort had a shorter length of hospital stay (mean (SD) 0.3 (0.5) days) compared with the TFA cohort (mean 0.7 (1.3) days; p=0.02) and lower hospital costs (mean $12 968 ($6518) compared with the TFA cohort (mean $17 150 ($10 946); p=0.004). After propensity adjustment for age, sex, symptoms, angiographic findings, procedure type, sheath size, and catheter size, TRA access was associated with a mean hospital cost of $2514 less than that for TFA access (95% CI −$4931 to −$97; p=0.04).ConclusionNeuroendovascular procedures performed through TRA access are associated with lower hospital costs than TFA procedures. The lower cost is likely due to a decreased length of hospital stay for TRA.

Download Full-text

Management of intended durotomy in minimally invasive intradural spine surgery

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2014.3.spine13719 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 21 (2) ◽

pp. 279-285 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Lee A. Tan ◽

Ippei Takagi ◽

David Straus ◽

John E. O'Toole

Keyword(s):

Blood Loss ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Bed Rest ◽

Tubular Retractor ◽

Specific Patient ◽

Dural Closure ◽

Estimated Blood Loss ◽

The Mean ◽

Operative Notes

Object Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been increasingly used for the treatment of various intradural spinal pathologies in recent years. Although MIS techniques allow for successful treatment of intradural pathology, primary dural closure in MIS can be technically challenging due to a limited surgical corridor through the tubular retractor system. The authors describe their experience with 23 consecutive patients from a single institution who underwent MIS for intradural pathologies, along with a review of pertinent literature. Methods A retrospective review of a prospectively collected surgical database was performed to identify patients who underwent MIS for intradural spinal pathologies between November 2006 and July 2013. Patient demographics, preoperative records, operative notes, and postoperative records were reviewed. Primary outcomes include operative duration, estimated blood loss, length of bed rest, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications, which were recorded prospectively. Results Twenty-three patients who had undergone MIS for intradural spinal pathologies during the study period were identified. Fifteen patients (65.2%) were female and 8 (34.8%) were male. The mean age at surgery was 54.4 years (range 30–74 years). Surgical pathologies included neoplastic (17 patients), congenital (3 patients), vascular (2 patients), and degenerative (1 patient). The most common spinal region treated was lumbar (11 patients), followed by thoracic (9 patients), cervical (2 patients), and sacral (1 patient). The mean operative time was 161.1 minutes, and the mean estimated blood loss was 107.2 ml. All patients were allowed full activity less than 24 hours after surgery. The median length of stay was 78.2 hours. Primary sutured dural closure was achieved using specialized MIS instruments with adjuvant fibrin sealant in all cases. The rate of postoperative headache, nausea, vomiting, and diplopia was 0%. No case of cutaneous CSF fistula or symptomatic pseudomeningocele was identified at follow-up, and no patient required revision surgery. Conclusions Primary dural closure with early mobilization is an effective strategy with excellent clinical outcomes in the use of MIS techniques for intradural spinal pathology. Prolonged bed rest after successful primary dural closure appears unnecessary, and the need for watertight dural closure should not prevent the use of MIS techniques in this specific patient population.

Download Full-text