Laparoscopic nephrectomy

Institutional Review Board approval and innovation in urology: current practice and safety issues

OBJECTIVE

To retrospectively review recent publications describing novel procedures/techniques, and describe the Institutional Review Board (IRB)/ethics approval process and potential ethical dilemmas in their reporting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed for papers about innovative or novel procedures/techniques between 2011 and August 2012. A query of titles/abstracts in the Journal of Urology, Journal of Endourology, European Urology, BJU International, and Urology identified relevant papers. These results were reviewed for human studies that described an innovative technique, procedure, approach, initial series, and/or used new technology.

RESULTS

In all, 91 papers met criteria for inclusion; 25 from the Journal of Endourology, 14 from the Journal of Urology, nine from European Urology, 15 from the BJU International and 28 from Urology. IRB/ethics approval was given for an experimental procedure or database in 24% and 22%, respectively. IRB/ethics approval was not mentioned in 52.7% of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Published IRB/ethics approvals for innovative techniques are heterogeneous including database, retrospective, and prospective approvals. Given the concept that innovations are likely not in the legal or ethical standard of care, strong consideration should be given to obtaining IRB/ethics approval before the actual procedure, instead of approval to merely report database outcomes.

Surgical aspects and future developments of laparoscopy

Laparoscopy has revolutionized surgery and in the process influenced the practice of anesthesiology. This article reviews several minimal access procedures that have been accepted into practice, are gaining acceptance, or remain investigational. Absolute contraindications to laparoscopy have been emphasized. As the threshold for primary care physicians to refer sicker and sicker patients for surgery decreases, it is crucial for the anesthesiologist to understand physiologic stresses of pneumoperitoneum and the nuances of laparoscopic surgery. The anesthesiologist also can be recruited to adjust insufflation pressures, tweak images on monitors, rotate and position the patient, or pass balloons and bougies. With patient and surgeon expectation of no pain or nausea and early discharge, anesthetic choices become vital for the ultimate success of the procedure.

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: the recipient

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy offers advantages to the donor in terms of decreased pain and shorter recuperation. Heretofore no detailed analysis of the recipient of laparoscopically procured kidneys has been performed. The purpose of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic donor nephrectomy had any deleterious effect on the recipient.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all live donor renal transplantations performed from January 1995 through April 1998. The control group received kidneys procured via a standard flank approach (Open). Rejection was diagnosed histologically. Creatinine clearance was calculated using the Cockroft-Gault formula.

RESULTS

A total of 110 patients received kidneys from laparoscopic (Lap) and 48 from open donors. One-year recipient (100% vs. 97.0%) and graft (93.5% vs. 91.1%) survival rates were similar for the Open and Lap groups, respectively. A similar incidence of vascular thrombosis (3.4% vs. 2.1%, P=NS) and ureteral complications (9.1% vs. 6.3%, P=NS) were seen in the Lap and Open groups, respectively. The incidence of acute rejection for the first month was 30.1% for the Lap group and 31.9% for the Open group (P=NS). The rate of decline of serum creatinine level in the early posttransplantation period was initially greater in the Open group, but by postoperative day 4 no significant difference existed. No difference was observed in allograft function long-term. The median length of hospital stay was 7.0 days for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy does not adversely effect recipient outcome. The previously demonstrated benefits to the donor, and the increased willingness of individuals to undergo live kidney donation, coupled with the acceptable outcomes experienced by recipients of laparoscopically procured kidneys justifies the continued development and adoption of this operation.

Laparoscopic assisted live donor nephrectomy--a comparison with the open approach

Live donor renal transplantation provides significant advantages when compared with cadaveric donor renal transplantation in terms of improved patient and graft survival, a lower incidence of delayed function, and a shorter waiting time. Yet despite these advantages, live donors continue to be an under utilized source of kidneys for transplantation. Disincentives to live donation include the length of hospitalization, postoperative pain, cosmetic concerns, and the prolonged convalescence associated with the donor operation. In many instances minimally invasive video-assisted techniques have proven more efficacious than standard open procedures in terms of patient discomfort, length of hospital stay, cost, and length of time until the patient can return to full activity. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomies are being performed at our institution in an attempt to make live donation more attractive to the potential donor. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively review the results of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LapNx) and to compare them with those obtained using the standard open approach (OpenNx). Ten consecutive LapNx were performed from February 1995 through April 1996. The control group consisted of the 20 consecutive OpenNx performed at the same institution from January 1991 through January 1995 immediately before the initiation of the LapNx program. Live donors were considered candidates for LapNx if they possessed at least one kidney with normal renal anatomy with single renal vessels and a single ureter. LapNx was safely performed in all cases. No patients required open conversion or blood transfusions. The allograft warm ischemic time for the laparoscopic cases was 4.2+/-1.3 min. All kidneys harvested laparoscopically produced urine on the table immediately upon revascularization. Presently nine of the ten recipients have functioning allografts. At three months posttransplant the calculated recipient creatinine clearances were 67.0+/-11.5 ml/min and 64.8+/-21.4 ml/min for the LapNx and OpenNx groups, respectively (P=NS). The LapNx donors had a significantly decreased estimated blood loss, shorter time until resumption of oral intake, decreased postoperative pain (in terms of decreased analgesic requirements), shorter hospitalization, and a shorter interval until the resumption of full activities (P<0.05 for all). In addition, the LapNx group donors returned to work sooner than the OpenNx group (3.9+/-1.6 wk vs. 6.4+/-3.1 wk, respectively) (P=0.024). Four individuals agreed to donate a kidney only after learning of the availability of the laparoscopic approach. We conclude that laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is technically feasible. In addition, it may offer significant advantages over the standard open approach in terms of patient comfort and convenience. These advantages may make live donor renal transplantation more attractive to prospective donors. The potential decrease in hospitalization and convalescence may also prove to be financially advantageous. We believe that further careful study of this procedure is warranted.

Laparoscopic nephrectomy: Mansoura experience with 106 cases

OBJECTIVE

To describe the technique and report our experience of laparoscopic nephrectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between August 1992 and December 1993, 106 patients underwent laparoscopic nephrectomy at the Mansoura Urology and Nephrology Center.

RESULTS

Of the 106 patients, laparoscopic nephrectomy was performed successfully in 97 cases. Conversion to an open procedure was necessary in the remaining nine patients.

CONCLUSION

For a selected group of patients, laparoscopic nephrectomy is a feasible and safe technique. The length of hospital stay and convalescence is short and return to work is rapid.

Laparoscopic nephrectomy: an established routine procedure

Between August 1992 and April 1993, 60 patients underwent laparoscopic nephrectomy in our institution for benign disease (35 hydronephrosis, 20 chronic pyelonephritis, 4 end-stage kidney, 1 renal hypoplasia). Conversion to open surgery was needed in six cases to overcome intraoperative bleeding or perirenal adhesions. The mean operative time was 3.5 +/- 1.3 hours, and the mean hospital stay was 3.2 +/- 2.1 days. No deaths occurred, but significant complications were encountered in four cases in the form of pulmonary embolism, a large hematoma, postoperative bleeding, and colonic perforation. Laparoscopic nephrectomy is a safe and effective alternative to open nephrectomy for benign renal conditions.