Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Learning curves of minimally invasive donor nephrectomy in a high-volume center: A cohort study of 1895 consecutive living donors

BACKGROUND

Few studies have investigated the learning curves of minimally invasive donor nephrectomy (MIDN) using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. In addition, no study has compared the learning curves of the different surgical MIDN techniques in one cohort study using the CUSUM analysis. This study aims to evaluate and compare learning curves for several MIDN using the CUSUM analysis.

METHODS

A retrospective review of consecutive donors, who underwent MIDN between 1997 and 2019, was conducted. Three laparoscopic-assisted techniques were applied in our institution and included for analysis: laparoscopic (LDN), hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic (HARP), and robot-assisted laparoscopic (RADN) donor nephrectomy. The outcomes were compared based on surgeon volume to develop learning curves for the operative time per surgeon.

RESULTS

Out of 1895 MIDN, 1365 (72.0%) were LDN, 427 (22.5%) were HARP, and 103 (5.4%) were RADN. The median operative time and median blood loss were 179 (IQR, 139-230) minutes and 100 (IQR, 40-200) mL, respectively. The incidence of major complication was 1.2% with no mortality, and the median hospital stay was three (IQR, 3-4) days. The CUSUM analysis resulted in learning curves, defined by decreased operative time, of 23 cases in LDN, 45 cases in HARP, and 26 cases in RADN.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows different learning curves in three MIDN techniques with equal post-operative complications. The LDN and RADN learning curves are shorter than that of the hand-assisted donor nephrectomy. Our observations can be helpful for informing the development of teaching requirements for fellows to be trained in MIDN.

Initial Experience With Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy: Training and Clinical Practice as a General Surgeon

BACKGROUND

To analyze our initial results of hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy, executed by a skilled gastrointestinal surgeon.

METHODS

A total of 22 consecutive patients underwent the hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy between December 2014 and January 2017. We retrospectively analyze the patient's perioperative clinical data, which were collected prospectively.

RESULTS

The right kidney was harvested in 12 patients. The mean operative time and intraoperative blood loss was 241.0 ± 43.4 minutes (range, 140-310 min) and 293.2 ± 203.1 mL (range, 50-700 mL), respectively. The mean warm ischemic time was 288.4 ± 103.4 seconds (range, 179-610 s). Postoperative complications included chyle leakage in 2 patients who were left kidney donors and oliguria in 1 patient who was a right kidney donor. All patients recovered with conservative care, and the mean hospital stay was 7.5 ± 1.7 days. The mean creatinine level was 0.7 ± 0.2 mg/dL before surgery, 1.1 ± 0.3 mg/dL at postoperative day (POD) 1, and 1.0 ± 0.2 mg/dL after discharge. The mean glomerular filtration rate was 97.9 ± 18.2 mL/min/1.73 m² before surgery, 60.7 ± 10.4 at POD 1, and 67.3 ± 11.1 after discharge. Operation time was not associated with patient body mass index and case number. No significant differences, other than postoperative complications, were found in the perioperative data for the side of kidney donation.

CONCLUSION

A skilled surgeon with experience in laparoscopic abdominal surgery (such as gastrectomy or colectomy) might safely perform hand-assisted donor nephrectomy. However, we could not identify a clear case number to complete the learning curve.

HandPort Laparoscopic Surgery-Review and Current Status

HandPort laparoscopic surgery is a hybrid operation that allows the surgeon to introduce his nondominant hand into abdominal cavity through the port while maintaining pneumoperitoneum. It also helps to gain experience and expertise to learn advanced laparoscopic procedures. The common surgeries where HandPort is useful are laparoscopic splenectomy, colectomies, and donor nephrectomies. HandPort facilitates dissection and extraction of specimens. Hand in abdomen restores tactile sensation which is lacking in laparoscopic procedures. It reduces operative time, increases technical expertise of surgeon, and decreases blood loss. This article reviews the current status of HandPort laparoscopic surgery, the various HandPort devices, and their use.

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Are ten cases per year enough to reach the quality standards? A report from a single small-volume transplant center

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is the preferred method of kidney donation in high-volume US transplant centers, but for small transplant programs the question of the minimal case load per year necessary to reach the quality standards is open.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From 1996 to 2007 we performed 130 live kidney donations including 93 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies followed by transplantation in a community hospital with an average case load of 10 laparoscopic cases per year. We compared the results after 37 open and 93 laparoscopic live donor operations with respect to operating time, conversion rate, complications, and recipients' outcome.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in terms of safe outcome of donor patients after open or laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The mean operating time was significantly shorter (p < 0.001) in the open group (125 min, OG) than in the laparoscopic group (150 min, LG). Mean hospital stay was significantly shorter (p < 0.001) in LG (6.8 days) versus OG (9.7 days). The conversion rate was 3.2% in the LG. Postoperative complication of donors consisted of temporary nerve irritation (two patients) and retroperitoneal hematoma (one patient) in the LG, and wound infection followed by hernia formation (one patient) and ileus 1 year after organ donation (one patient) in the OG. Safe outcome of the recipients after open (RaOD) or laparoscopic donation (RaLD) was similar. Uneventful transplantation occurred in 94.6% of the RaOD and in 92.5% of the RaLD. One kidney was lost due to renal vein thrombosis (RaLD). Mean postoperative creatinine after 4 weeks showed no difference between RaOD (1.6 mg/dl) and RaLD (1.7 mg/dl).

CONCLUSION

Approximately ten cases per year may be enough to ensure safety and quality of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy.

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy for right kidneys: Experience in a German community hospital

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has become the new gold standard for kidney procurement in many high-volume transplant centres worldwide, but it is often limited to left-sided donor kidneys. Concerns about adequate anatomical renal vessel length and sufficient surgical exposure are the main obstacles to the use of the laparoscopic approach for right kidney live donors as well.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From 1998 to 2006 we performed laparoscopic kidney procurement in 73 live kidney donors on an intention-to-treat basis, harvesting a total of 48 left (LKG) and 25 right kidneys (RKG) for transplantation. We compared these two groups with respect to operating time, conversion rate, complications, hospital stay, and recipient outcome.

RESULTS

There were no differences in outcome of donor patients after left (D-LKG) or right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (D-RKG). Operating time was 160 min in D-RKG versus 164 min in D-LKG. Warm ischemia was below 150 s in both groups. Hospital stay was 7.0 (D-RKG) versus 6.7 days (D-LKG). Negative events on the donor site were one temporary nerve irritation in each group and one postoperative retroperitoneal hematoma in the left kidney group. Reasons to convert to open nephrectomy were bleeding in two patients in the left kidney group and adhesions in one patient in the right kidney group. The outcome of the recipients after left (R-LKG) or right kidney (R-RKG) transplantation was similar. One kidney was lost due to renal vein thrombosis (R-LKG). Postoperative ureter complications occurred in one patient of each group. One patient of the R-RKG and two patients of the R-LKG required lymphocele fenestration. All other kidney transplants worked without problems.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a safe procedure and has been established as the method of choice for live kidney donation in our clinic. Laparoscopic procurement of right and left kidneys can be performed with comparable quality and outcome for donors and recipients.

Comparing outcomes of hand-assisted versus total laparoscopic gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have compared open versus hand-assisted and open versus total laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. This study compared hand-assisted and total laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery performed at 2 institutions by 2 surgeons, each specializing in 1 of the techniques.

METHODS

Gastric bypass operations (n = 272) were evaluated from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004. The comparisons between the hand-assisted (n = 149) and laparoscopic (n = 123) approach were done using the median test, t test, chi-square analysis, and Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

The average patient age was 43.9 years, and 84% (229 of 272) of the patients were women. The average body mass index was 48.8 kg/m2. No significant difference was found between the hand-assist and laparoscopic groups in age, gender, preoperative body mass index, diabetes, hypertension, or operative time. No significant difference was found in the mortality rate between the hand-assist (2 of 149, 1.3%) and laparoscopic (1 of 123, 0.8%) groups. Also, no significant difference was found in the incidence of leaks, pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, wound infection, bowel obstruction, incisional hernia, fistula, persistent vomiting, or reoperation between the 2 procedures. A significant difference was found in the length of stay, with a median of 3 days for the hand-assist group and 2 days for the laparoscopic group (P <.001), and hemorrhage requiring transfusion, which occurred in 1 (.7%) of 149 hand-assist patients and 7 (5.7%) of 123 laparoscopic patients (P = .025). The percentage of excess weight loss 6 months after surgery was also similar between the two groups, at 50.2% and 52.1% for the hand-assist and laparoscopic groups, respectively (P = .45).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study have found that both hand-assist and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass can be accomplished with similar perioperative risks and outcomes, including weight reduction. The choice between the 2 procedures depends on surgeon preference.

Handassistierte transperitoneale laparoskopische Donornephrektomie

From December 2004 to May 2005 we performed hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in 13 female and seven male patients. The median age was 37 years. As immunosuppressant drug, we consistently used tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, methylprednisolone and a monoclonal antibody. The median surgical time was 138 min (range 113-180), and the median warm ischemic time was 87 s (range 63-150). These results are comparable to the surgical and warm ischemic times for open donor nephrectomy. The hospitalization period of the donors was between 5 and 7 days. Renal function and acute-phase parameters showed a transient increase during and after the operation. Most of the patients reached the baseline levels at day 3 and 4, respectively. Together with the clinical data, these findings verify the minimal invasiveness of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. In the future, this surgical method will probably be the procedure of choice.

Cytotoxic effects of volatile anesthetics with free radicals undergoing laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Free radicals induced by several diseases can trigger oxidative stress, leading to the production of malondialdehyde (MDA) and protein carbonyl content (CB). Volatile agents are able to increase the extent of oxidative status. However, the effects of these agents together with pneumoperitonium (Pp) have not been reported. We aimed to investigate the role of volatile anesthetics and ischemic injury during Pp on free radicals and scavenging enzymes in laparoscopic abdominal surgery.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Forty patients were examined. Patients were randomly divided into four groups in order to receive sevoflurane-fentanyl (SF = 10), sevoflurane-N(2)O (SN = 10), desflurane-fentanyl (DF = 10), and desflurane-N(2)O (DN = 10), respectively. Tidal volume and ventilation frequency were kept unchanged during the operation. Intraabdominal pressure was remained constant at 12 mm Hg. Baseline values in venous blood samples were preoperatively taken and blood was also taken postoperatively at the 6th and the 24th hours. After collection of blood samples into citrate (3.5 mg/mL blood) containing glass tubes, erythrocyte sediments were prepared for the analyses. Then malondialdehyde levels, protein carbonyl content, and sulfhydryl (SH) groups were measured.

RESULTS

The levels of MDA and protein carbonyl content were significantly higher at the 6th hour rather than the 24th hour postoperatively with desflurane anesthesia. In addition, SH groups were significantly different between the 6th hour and the 24th hour measurements (P < 0.05). In our study, desflurane caused a statistically significant increase in MDA levels and protein carbonyl content and a decrease in SH groups. When the two groups were compared, in the case of MDA and CB values, a significant increase was observed in the 6th and the 24th hour, where there was a decrease in SH groups in the desflurane group (P < 0.05). These parameters did not change in the sevoflurane group (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

We concluded that desflurane was affected by desflurane with low flow anesthesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Significant influence on oxidative stress and antioxidant mechanics was not seen with sevoflurane anesthesia. Our studies support that oxidant and antioxidant defense mechanisms were altered in the desflurane group and this alteration improved after a combination of desflurane-N(2)O.

Telementoring facilitates independent hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy

Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy is a major advance but a challenging procedure to learn even after laparoscopic training. It requires significant previous training in both laparoscopic and transplant surgery. Telementoring has been shown to reduce the laparoscopic learning curve in other fields. Of six cases of hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) living donor nephrectomy at our institution, an on-site mentor supervised the initial two. We present the subsequent four cases as the first documented examples of telementored HAL live donor nephrectomy. Telelink was established with a Comstation (Zydacron, UK) incorporating a Z360 telementoring codec and four ISDN lines (512 kb/s) with time delay of 500 ms for both audio and video. The remote surgeon in Minnesota (USA) could change independently between the laparoscopic and external views. The operating surgeons were able to look at the mentor and converse with him throughout. There were no adverse events in recipients and graft function was excellent. With regards to the telementored group the mean operative time was 240 minutes, the mean warm ischemic time 189 seconds, the mean estimated blood loss 171 mL, and the mean length of hospital stay 3 days. Telementoring for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is feasible, effective, and likely to aid independent practice by providing continued supervision and reducing the learning period.

Use of a minimally invasive donor nephrectomy program to select technique for live donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

Live donor nephrectomy (LDN) is a major surgical procedure with an accepted low mortality and morbidity. Minimally invasive donor nephrectomy (MIDN) has been shown to decrease the wound morbidity associated with the lumbotomy of the classic open technique. Transplant programs face the challenge of initiating their MIDN programs without jeopardizing the safety of the donor and the graft quality. We present the experience at the University of Calgary after the initiation of a MIDN program, with a preoperative selective approach using the 3 major techniques for LDN.

METHODS

From December 2001 to May 2004, 50 consecutive, accepted, live kidney donors were evaluated and chosen to undergo nephrectomy by an open, laparoscopic, or hand-assisted technique. Patients were chosen for a particular technique based on the criteria of vascular anatomy, size of abdominal cavity, previous surgery, and technical implications for the recipient.

RESULTS

A total of 15 open, 11 laparoscopic, and 24 hand-assisted nephrectomies were performed. There were no statistically significant differences in sex, age, or body mass index between the groups. There were statistically significant differences in surgical times (P < .001) and in the number of days spent in the hospital (P < .001). All kidneys had primary function. There were 2 conversions in the hand-assisted group and 1 blood transfusion in the open group. Death-censored graft survival was 100% with an observation time of 20 months (SD +/- 9 months; range = 3-32 months). One graft from the hand-assisted group was lost from patient death with functioning graft 8 months after transplant.

CONCLUSIONS

The learning curve for MIDN does not necessarily need to impact donor or recipient outcomes. The initiation of an MIDN program can be implemented safely if the cases are selected carefully and the use of the classic open technique is kept as an alternative.

Learning curve of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy in less-experienced laparoscopic surgeons

AIM

To evaluate the learning curve of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy (HALS) performed by less-experienced surgeons.

METHODS

The operative records of 166 patients, including 103 with renal tumors and 63 with renal pelvic or ureteral tumors, who underwent HALS performed by 18 less-experienced urologists were reviewed.

RESULTS

The insufflation time in the first four cases was significantly longer than that in the sixteenth and later cases. The insufflation time in cases 5-10 was 14-24 min longer than that in the cases 16 onward, although the differences were not significant. The estimated blood loss did not differ in each group of cases. The complication rate in early cases, in which the operators' experience was five cases or less, was 6% (4/71), while that in later cases was also 7% (7/95). In the analysis of the learning curve of a single surgeon who performed 57 procedures, the insufflation time in cases 1-5 was significantly longer than in cases 41-57. The insufflation times in cases 5-10 were 45 min longer than those in cases 41-57, although the difference was not significant. The estimated blood loss did not differ in each group of cases. Complications did not seem related to operation experience.

CONCLUSION

In HALS, 5-10 cases were necessary for less-experienced urologists to gain average operating skills for this procedure. It may be reasonable for less-experienced surgeons to begin standard laparoscopic procedures after experiencing 10 cases of the present procedure.

Randomized clinical trial of hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for the treatment of morbid obesity

BACKGROUND

: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP) has increased in popularity since the introduction of the laparoscopic procedure, but this approach requires extensive surgical skill and the learning curve is steep. The present study examined the suitability of hand-assisted laparoscopy for RYGBP.

METHODS

In a prospective trial, 50 patients (median age 38 years, body mass index 45 kg/m(2)) were randomized to either hand-assisted (n = 25) or open (n = 25) RYGBP. The hand-assisted device was introduced through a right subcostal incision. Laparoscopic staplers were also used in the open group, allowing a short upper midline incision. The gastrojejunostomy was made by means of a circular stapler and the Roux limb placed behind the colon and excluded stomach.

RESULTS

The postoperative outcome, with respect to morphine consumption, complications, hospital stay (6 days) and weight loss, was similar in the two groups. The operating time was significantly longer in the hand-assisted group (150 versus 85 min; P < 0.001) but there was no conversion to open operation. One patient in the hand-assisted group was reoperated owing to leakage and one patient developed an incisional hernia after open RYGBP.

CONCLUSION

The hand-assisted technique was feasible and allowed good working conditions in all patients. However, the postoperative outcome was excellent in both groups and there was no advantage to the hand-assisted technique.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

Background

Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HLDN) may have advantages over laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, such as shorter learning curve, operation and warm ischaemia times. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of HLDN.

Methods

Between January 2000 and October 2002, 50 consecutive HLDN procedures were performed through a low transverse abdominal incision, 23 right sided and 27 left sided.

Results

The median age of the donors was 44 years. No HLDN required conversion to an open procedure. The median operating time for HLDN was 153 min. The median warm ischaemia time was 3 (range 1·0–4·5) min and the median blood loss was 50 (range 20–500) ml in both left- and right-sided procedures. Eight patients suffered ten minor complications during their admission. The duration of hospital stay was 5 days for donors. Three recipients developed graft failure owing to acute rejection, renal vein thrombosis and ischaemic necrosis.

Conclusion

Both left- and right-sided HLDN procedures were feasible and safe through a low transverse abdominal incision.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS): a report of 150 procedures

BACKGROUND

This study was performed to evaluate the (long-term) morbidity associated with hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for various indications.

METHODS

HALS procedures for various indications were evaluated prospectively from 1995 to 2002. The primary outcome parameters were postsurgical complications and the development of incisional hernias.

RESULTS

Twenty-six splenectomies, 51 hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomies (HLDN), 34 segmental bowel resections, 29 proctocolectomies, and 10 emergency colectomies were evaluated. A Küstner or Pfannenstiel incision was used for handport placement. Minor complications (i.e., wound complications, urinary tract infection) occurred in 15%, 12%, 26%, 7%, and 33% of the patients after, respectively, splenectomy, HLDN, bowel resection, proctocolectomy, and emergency colectomy. Major complications (i.e., hemorrhage, anastomotic leakage) occurred in 15% and 12% of the patients after, respectively, bowel resection and proctocolectomy. Incisional hernias occurred in six patients (4%), all after a wound complication in the Küstner incision.

CONCLUSION

HALS is fast, safe, and feasible for various indications, especially HLDN and (procto-)colectomies. Little advantage can be expected when HALS is applied in splenectomy and segmental bowel (sigmoid) resection.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Background

Living kidney donation represents an important source of organs for patients with end-stage renal failure. Over the past decade, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has replaced the conventional open procedure in many transplant centres. Using evidence-based methods, this study examines the current status of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Method

A Medline literature search (PubMed database, 1999–2002) and manual cross-referencing were performed to identify all articles relating to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Safety and efficacy criteria were analysed systematically for each study. Studies included were categorized using an evidence-based level grading system.

Results

Of 687 publications, 20 studies with level I–II evidence and 12 with level III evidence were analysed. Only one level I study could be identified. Level I and level II evidence suggests superiority of the laparoscopic approach in regard to postoperative analgesic consumption, hospital stay and return to work. Other safety and efficacy criteria, including donor and recipient outcomes, were similar between the two techniques.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has gained community acceptance by physicians and patients over the past decade. Despite a lack of strong evidence, such as large prospective randomized studies, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is likely to become the ‘gold standard’ for donor nephrectomy in the near future.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy at a low volume living donor transplant center: successful outcomes can be expected

PURPOSE

Concern has been raised about possible increased morbidity associated with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) during the learning curve of the procedure and at centers with a low volume of living donors. We evaluated the safety and success of LDN at a low volume living donor transplant center with a skilled laparoscopic urologist and experienced renal transplant team.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed the records of all patients who underwent LDN at our institution. A single surgeon skilled in laparoscopy (JAC) performed all LDNs. Patient demographics, operative reports, complications and recipient outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 17 LDNs were performed between January 2000 and September 2002. There was 1 elective conversion to an open procedure for kidney harvest due to complex hilar anatomy. Only 1 minor complication occurred (wound seroma) and 1 donor had creatinine persistently elevated to 1.9 mg/dl (normal 0.6 to 1.2). Mean operating room time, estimated blood loss and hospital stay were 250 minutes, 188 ml and 2.5 days, respectively. Recipient creatinine had a nadir mean of 1.2 mg/dl and a 90-day postoperative mean of 1.6 mg/dl. One recipient eventually lost the graft due to recurrent disease.

CONCLUSIONS

LDN can be performed safely and efficiently at low volume transplant centers with a skilled laparoscopist and experienced renal transplant team. Laparoscopic skills developed during similar procedures, such as laparoscopic radical and partial nephrectomy, minimize the learning curve and morbidity of LDN to produce results consistent with those in the published literature.

Cost comparison of hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy and open nephrectomy: analysis of individual parameters

PURPOSE

Hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HAL) is an effective approach to nephrectomy that is less morbid than open nephrectomy (ON). In response to budgetary pressure at our large county hospital we reviewed the published experience and identified the cost components of HAL that could be targeted to decrease procedure cost.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature review of HAL and ON was performed and certain parameters were abstracted, including operative (OR) time, operative equipment and hospital stay (LOS). Using these data the projected overall cost and individual cost centers at our institution for HAL and ON were compared. Decision tree analysis models were devised to estimate the cost of each treatment using computer software. One and 2-way sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of individual treatment variables on overall cost.

RESULTS

The literature showed 6 and 9 reports on 127 and 419 patients for ON and HAL, respectively. LOS was 5 and 3 days for ON and HAL, respectively. OR time was 169 and 204 minutes for ON and HAL, respectively. Based on a review of the costs at our institution ON was a less costly procedure by $205 ($6,882 vs $7,087 US dollars). The slight cost superiority of the open approach was due to significantly lower costs associated with operating room time and equipment. On the other hand, HAL demonstrated a cost advantage for LOS. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that HAL was less costly if HAL OR time was less than 184 minutes, LOS following HAL was less than 2.5 days or HAL OR supply costs were less than $718 US dollars. Two-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that HAL was cost advantageous if performed in less than 3 hours and the patient was discharged home within 3 postoperative days.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary cost variables for nephrectomy include OR time, LOS stay and equipment cost. Using published data and decision tree analysis ON is slightly less costly by $205 US dollars than HAL at our institution. However, HAL can be more cost-effective than ON when OR time and LOS are low. Our model identifies several measures that can be used at any institution to render HAL economically superior to ON.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic left nephrectomy in standing horses

OBJECTIVE

To describe a hand-assisted, laparoscopic technique to remove the left kidney in standing horses.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective evaluation.

ANIMALS

Eight horses.

METHODS

Food was withheld for a minimum of 12 hours. Horses were sedated with detomidine hydrochloride (0.01-0.02 mg/kg, intravenously) and restrained in standing stocks. The left paralumbar fossa was prepared for surgery, and the surgical site was infiltrated with 2% mepivacaine. Hand-assisted, laparoscopic removal of the left kidney was performed through an incision in the center of the paralumbar fossa; the surgeon's hand was used to isolate the left kidney and associated vasculature. The renal artery and vein were isolated and individually ligated. After vessel transection distal to the ligatures, the left kidney was exteriorized, the ureter ligated and transected, and the incision closed.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic removal of the left kidney was successfully performed in all horses. Retroperitoneal infiltration of local anesthesia provided adequate anesthesia. Intraoperative hemorrhage occurred in 3 horses. Surgical duration (initial skin incision to transection of the left kidney) ranged from 20 to 90 minutes. In 2 horses, no signs of pain were noted for 48 hours postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery can be used for removal of the left kidney in horses. Clinical Relevance-Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy can be safely performed in standing horses; however, care should be taken to identify accessory branches of the renal artery to limit potential complications with hemorrhage.

One versus two proficient laparoscopic surgeons for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

OBJECTIVES

To compare the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) results obtained by two different surgical teams, one consisting of a proficient laparoscopic surgeon assisted by an inexperienced laparoscopic surgeon and another consisting of two proficient laparoscopic surgeons. With more centers embarking on LDN programs, it is important to identify the factors that can improve overall outcomes during the initial learning curve.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of the initial 70 sequential LDNs performed between October 1998 and March 2001 at our institutions. The procedures were stratified into two groups. Group 1 consisted of LDN cases performed by one proficient laparoscopic surgeon and an inexperienced laparoscopic surgeon (resident, fellow, or faculty) as the first assistant; group 2 consisted of cases performed by two proficient laparoscopic surgeons.

RESULTS

Twenty-six LDNs were performed by group 1 and 44 by group 2. The total operative time and estimated blood loss showed a statistically significant decrease in group 2 compared with group 1, 143 +/- 32 minutes versus 218 +/- 38 minutes (P <0.001) and 92 +/- 115 mL versus 158 +/- 148 mL (P = 0.044), respectively. Two major complications occurred in group 1 (7.7%) and two major complications occurred in group 2 (4.5%). The 3-month postoperative recipient creatinine levels were similar for both groups, 1.6 +/- 1.3 versus 1.4 +/- 0.4 (P = 0.408).

CONCLUSIONS

A surgical team composed of two proficient laparoscopic surgeons during the early learning curve of LDN may allow safe and efficient development of a laparoscopic live donor renal transplantation program.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: an update

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was developed primarily to increase the number of kidneys available for donation. Further evidence of the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has been reported in the literature, as have studies on the cost-effectiveness of this procedure and its role in removing disincentives for renal donation. Specific technical modifications have been developed and refined that improve outcomes when performing laparoscopic harvesting of right kidneys. Other technical modifications have been developed for use in obese patients. With the adoption of these modified techniques, equivalent results to open donor nephrectomy have been reported. Recently, a wide range of alternative approaches (hand-assisted, retroperitoneal, and gasless laparoscopy) have been utilized for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.