A cost-effective technique for pure laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Siqueira Jr,Tiberio M
Data de Publicação: 2006
Outros Autores: Mitre,Anuar I., Simoes,Fabiano A., Maciel,Andre F., Ferraz,Alvaro M., Arap,Sami
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: International Braz J Urol (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382006000100004
Resumo: 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-Lok<FONT FACE=Symbol>Ò</FONT> 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%). One donor death occurred in CB (2%). 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.
id SBU-1_6140ee0766e59cd241d997f46dad15ea
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1677-55382006000100004
network_acronym_str SBU-1
network_name_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling A cost-effective technique for pure laparoscopic live donor nephrectomykidney transplantationnephrectomylaparoscopycosts and cost analysisOBJECTIVE: 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-Lok<FONT FACE=Symbol>Ò</FONT> 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%). One donor death occurred in CB (2%). 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.Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2006-02-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382006000100004International braz j urol v.32 n.1 2006reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/S1677-55382006000100004info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSiqueira Jr,Tiberio MMitre,Anuar I.Simoes,Fabiano A.Maciel,Andre F.Ferraz,Alvaro M.Arap,Samieng2006-06-01T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382006000100004Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2006-06-01T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv A cost-effective technique for pure laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy
title A cost-effective technique for pure laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy
spellingShingle A cost-effective technique for pure laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy
Siqueira Jr,Tiberio M
kidney transplantation
nephrectomy
laparoscopy
costs and cost analysis
title_short A cost-effective technique for pure laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy
title_full A cost-effective technique for pure laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy
title_fullStr A cost-effective technique for pure laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy
title_full_unstemmed A cost-effective technique for pure laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy
title_sort A cost-effective technique for pure laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy
author Siqueira Jr,Tiberio M
author_facet Siqueira Jr,Tiberio M
Mitre,Anuar I.
Simoes,Fabiano A.
Maciel,Andre F.
Ferraz,Alvaro M.
Arap,Sami
author_role author
author2 Mitre,Anuar I.
Simoes,Fabiano A.
Maciel,Andre F.
Ferraz,Alvaro M.
Arap,Sami
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Siqueira Jr,Tiberio M
Mitre,Anuar I.
Simoes,Fabiano A.
Maciel,Andre F.
Ferraz,Alvaro M.
Arap,Sami
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv kidney transplantation
nephrectomy
laparoscopy
costs and cost analysis
topic kidney transplantation
nephrectomy
laparoscopy
costs and cost analysis
description 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-Lok<FONT FACE=Symbol>Ò</FONT> 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%). One donor death occurred in CB (2%). 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.
publishDate 2006
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2006-02-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382006000100004
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382006000100004
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S1677-55382006000100004
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv International braz j urol v.32 n.1 2006
reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron:SBU
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron_str SBU
institution SBU
reponame_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
collection International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br
_version_ 1750318069459189760