A comparison of hand-assisted and pure laparoscopic techniques in live donor nephrectomy

Authors

  • Anibal Wood Branco Red Cross Hospital; Department of Urology
  • William Kondo Red Cross Hospital
  • Alcides José Branco Filho Red Cross Hospital
  • Marco Aurélio de George Red Cross Hospital
  • Marlon Rangel Red Cross Hospital
  • Luciano Carneiro Stunitz Red Cross Hospital; Department of Urology

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-59322008000600015

Keywords:

Laparoscopy, Nephrectomy, Kidney transplantation, Living donor, Hand-assisted

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and pure laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy techniques in live donor nephrectomy. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we included all patients submitted to hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and pure laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy between May 2002 and December 2007. The operative data and post-operative courses were reviewed. Information was collected on the operative time, warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss, intra-operative complications, time to first oral intake, length of hospital stay, and post-operative complications. The data were analyzed using Student's t -tests and Fisher exact tests as appropriate, with statistical significance defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: The means of the operative duration, warm ischemia time and intra-operative bleeding were 83 min, 3.6 min and 130.9 cc, respectively, for hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, and 78.4 min, 2.5 min and 98.9 cc, respectively, for pure laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (p=0.29, p<0.0001 and p=0.08, respectively). Intra-operative complications occurred in 6% of patients submitted to hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and in 4.5% of those submitted to pure laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (p=0.68). Only one patient from each group required conversion to open surgery; one person receiving hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy had bleeding and one person receiving pure laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy had low carbon dioxide levels during the warm ischemia period. Compared with patients receiving hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, patients submitted to pure laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy were able to take their first meal earlier (12.5 vs. 9.2 hours, p=0.046), were discharged home sooner (2.8 vs. 1.4 days, p<0.0001) and had fewer post-operative complications (7.5% vs. 0.6%, p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Pure laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy had some advantages over hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in terms of the warm ischemia time, time to first oral intake, length of hospital stay, and post-operative donor complications.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2008-01-01

Issue

Section

Clinical Sciences

How to Cite

A comparison of hand-assisted and pure laparoscopic techniques in live donor nephrectomy . (2008). Clinics, 63(6), 795-800. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-59322008000600015