+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Ascending the learning curve



Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Ascending the learning curve



Surgical Endoscopy 15(5): 442-444



The hand-assisted approach to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) might minimize the learning curve and shorten both the operation and the warm ischemia time. Our initial results from hand-assisted LDN are presented and compared with data from the literature. From January to September 2000, ten hand-assisted LDNs of the right kidney were performed. The median operation time was 140 min (range, 120-400 min), and the warm ischemia time was 2.5 min (range, 1-4 min). There were no conversions. Postoperative morbidity included one urinary tract infection. All but one patient returned to a normal diet within 48 h. Opiates were needed a maximum of 48 h. One recipient experienced initial loss of graft function as a result of unknown causes. Even at the beginning of the learning curve, operation time and warm ischemia time are significantly reduced by the hand-assisted approach, as compared with conventional LDN.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 046211039

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 11353956

DOI: 10.1007/s004640090091


Related references

Evaluation of the Learning Curve of Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy. Annals of Transplantation 23: 546-553, 2018

Effect of robotic assistance on the "learning curve" for laparoscopic hand-assisted donor nephrectomy. Surgical Endoscopy 21(9): 1512-1517, 2007

Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: analysis of the learning curve in a training model in vivo. Transplantation Proceedings 41(4): 1125-1127, 2015

Overcoming the learning curve in hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy - a study in the animal model. South African Journal of Surgery. Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif Vir Chirurgie 49(1): 13-16, 2011

Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy: prospective evaluation of the learning curve. Journal of Urology 171(1): 63-67, 2003

Learning curve of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy in less-experienced laparoscopic surgeons. International Journal of Urology 12(1): 1-6, 2005

Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparison study in the canine model. Techniques in Urology 5(3): 174-178, 1999

Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: comparable donor/recipient outcomes, costs, and decreased convalescence as compared to open donor nephrectomy. Transplantation Proceedings 33(1-2): 1106-1107, 2001

Can right-sided hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy be advocated above standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a randomized pilot study. Transplant International 27(2): 162-169, 2014

Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparative study with conventional open donor nephrectomy in a single Chinese center. Transplantation Proceedings 40(10): 3362-3364, 2009

Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: comparison to pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Transplantation Proceedings 40(3): 687-688, 2008

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for live donor nephrectomy is more time- and cost-effective than standard laparoscopic nephrectomy. Surgical Endoscopy 16(3): 422-425, 2002

Early and late graft function after laparoscopic hand-assisted donor nephrectomy for living kidney transplantation: comparison with open donor nephrectomy. Urologia Internationalis 84(1): 61-66, 2010

Comparison of open live donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy, and hand-assisted live donor nephrectomy: a cost-minimization analysis. Journal of Surgical Research 176(2): E89-E94, 2012

Open donor, laparoscopic donor and hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: A comparison of outcomes. Journal of Urology 166(4): 1270-1274, October, 2001