Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A cost-effective technique for pure laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy
Siqueira Júnior, Tiberio M; Mitre, Anuar I; Simões, Fabiano A; Maciel, Andre F; Ferraz, Alvaro M; Arap, Sami.
  • Siqueira Júnior, Tiberio M; Federal University of Pernambuco. General Hospital. Kidney Transplantation Center. Recife. BR
  • Mitre, Anuar I; University of São Paulo. General Hospital. Kidney Transplantation Center. São Paulo. BR
  • Simões, Fabiano A; University of São Paulo. General Hospital. Kidney Transplantation Center. São Paulo. BR
  • Maciel, Andre F; Federal University of Pernambuco. General Hospital. Kidney Transplantation Center. Recife. BR
  • Ferraz, Alvaro M; Federal University of Pernambuco. General Hospital. Kidney Transplantation Center. Recife. BR
  • Arap, Sami; University of São Paulo. General Hospital. Kidney Transplantation Center. São Paulo. BR
Int. braz. j. urol ; 32(1): 23-30, Jan.-Feb. 2006. ilus, graf
Article in English | LILACS | ID: lil-425493
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

Compare two different techniques for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN), related to the operative costs and learning curve. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

Between April/2000 and October/2003, 61 patients were submitted to LDN in 2 different reference centers in kidney transplantation. At center A (CA), 11 patients were operated by a pure transperitoneal approach, using Hem-O-Lokomicron clips for the renal pedicle control and the specimens were retrieved manually, without using endobags. At center B (CB), 50 patients were also operated by a pure transperitoneal approach, but the renal pedicles were controlled with endo-GIA appliers and the specimens were retrieved using endobags.

RESULTS:

Operative time (231 ± 39 min vs. 179 ± 30 min; p < 0.000), warm ischemia time (5.85 ± 2.85 min vs. 3.84 ± 3.84 min; p = 0.002) and blood loss (214 ± 98 mL vs. 141 ± 82 mL; p = 0.02) were statistically better in CB, when compared to CA. Discharge time was similar in both centers. One major complication was observed in both centers, leading to an open conversion in CA (9.1 percent). One donor death occurred in CB (2 percent). Regarding the recipients, no statistical difference was observed in all parameters analyzed. There was an economy of US$1.440 in each procedure performed in CA, when compared to CB.

CONCLUSIONS:

Despite the learning curve, the technique adopted by CA, showed no deleterious results to the donors and recipients when compared with the CB. On the other hand, this technique was cheaper than the technique performed in the CB, representing an attractive alternative for LDN, mainly in developing centers.
Subject(s)
Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Main subject: Laparoscopy / Living Donors / Tissue and Organ Harvesting / Nephrectomy Type of study: Health economic evaluation Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Int. braz. j. urol Journal subject: Urology Year: 2006 Type: Article Affiliation country: Brazil Institution/Affiliation country: Federal University of Pernambuco/BR / University of São Paulo/BR

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS

Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Main subject: Laparoscopy / Living Donors / Tissue and Organ Harvesting / Nephrectomy Type of study: Health economic evaluation Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Int. braz. j. urol Journal subject: Urology Year: 2006 Type: Article Affiliation country: Brazil Institution/Affiliation country: Federal University of Pernambuco/BR / University of São Paulo/BR