Single stapler technique in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is usually performed with at least 2 separate vascular staplers for division of the renal artery and vein. However, we used a single stapler regardless of the number of renal arteries and veins. Furthermore, the graft was quickly retrieved by hand without using an extraction bag using our technique. Herein we have presented our experience with LDN of grafts with single or multiple renal arteries and/or veins using a single stapler and hand removal. METHODS: We reviewed demographic data, operative and warm ischemia times, postoperative complications, and graft function. RESULTS: Between December 2005 and September 2009, we performed 85 cases with 1 renal artery (group LDN-1), 8 cases with two renal arteries (group LDN-2), and 5 cases with 3 or more renal arteries (group LDN-3). The demographic data among the groups were similar. The mean operative time was significantly longer among groups LDN-2 (100.3 ± 9.5 minutes) and LDN-3 (120.6 ± 10.3 minutes) compared with LDN-1 (76.1 ± 9.3 minutes; P < .001). Similar results were observed with respect to warm ischemia times. There were no significant differences related to graft function and outcomes among these groups. CONCLUSION: The single stapler and hand removal technique was safe, technically feasible, and cost effective regardless of the number of renal arteries and veins. This technique removes the necessity of additional staplers and extraction bags, lowers the operative and warm ischemia times, and thus decreases the cost.

Pure laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy: evaluation of health survey and graft functions.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has become the gold standard in many kidney transplantation centers seeking to increase the number of potential live donors. This study was designed to compare the health surveys and graft functions between LDN and open donor nephrectomy (ODN). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent donor nephrectomy between December 2005 and September 2009 who had at least 1 year of follow-up. We reviewed demographic data, operative time, warm ischemia period, graft function, and quality of life. RESULTS: Among the 132 cases, 98 were pure LDN and 34 were ODN. Demographic data were similar in both groups. Operative times were significantly longer in the ODN group but warm ischemia times significantly longer in the LDN group. However, graft functions were similar in both groups. There was 1 graft loss due to arterial thrombosis of the transplanted kidney among the LDN group. Short-Form 36 health survey scores were similar except for the role-physical subscale. CONCLUSION: Although we failed to observe a significant difference between ODN and LDN as far as the quality of life and graft functions were concerned, the previously documented advantages of laparoscopy with similar operative results suggest? LDN to be the gold standard for this procedure in our institution.

Living-donor hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Organ transplantation from deceased donors is still far below the need. Because of this deficiency, liver transplantations are performed mostly from live donors in many transplant centers in our country. Living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has evolved dramatically over the past decade. The aim of this study was to present our clinical experience with living-donor hepatectomy. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent donor hepatectomy between March 2000 and September 2010. We reviewed demographic data, operation type, operation and cold ischemia times, duration of hospital stay, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: During the study period, 140 living donors underwent operations for liver transplantation. We performed 108 right hepatectomies, 17 left hepatectomies, and 15 left lateral hepatectomies. The mean age of the donors was 30.8 years. There was no operative or postoperative mortality. Overall morbidity rate was 13.57% (n = 19). Nine patients had biliary leakages, 4 biliomas; 2 urinary tract infections, and 1 each inferior vena caval injury, pneumonia, portal vein thrombosis, and acute tubular necrosis. Reoperation was not required in any of these patients. CONCLUSIONS: Living-donor liver transplantation is a valuable alternative for patients awaiting a cadaver organ. Live-donor hepatectomy can be performed with low morbidity. The greatest disadvantage of this procedure is the risk of the surgical operation for the individual who will experience no medical benefit from this procedure.

Identification of post-transplant lymphocele using lymphatic mapping with isosulphane blue.

Lymphocele development after renal transplantation is a well-recognized complication that occurs with the incidence of 0.6-18%. Although the majority of patients are asymptomatic, post-renal transplant lymphocele continues to be a major cause of morbidity if it is left untreated. The standard approach for the treatment of symptomatic lymphoceles is accepted to be laparoscopic or open marsupialization in many centers if simple drainage and conservative measures fail. However, marsupialization is almost impossible under certain circumstances, such as in the case of excessive abdominal adhesions. Hence, direct visualization of the lymphatic leak and suture ligation may become inevitable, which is usually a challenging procedure for the surgeon. Herein we report a case of post-renal transplant lymphocele treated by the direct identification and suture ligation of injured lymphatic vessel using a new method similar to sentinel lymph node detection using the dye isosulphane blue.