Laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy in 210 consecutive patients: Outcomes,cost, and changes in practice patterns

Background: Initially slow to gain widespread acceptance within the urological community, laparoscopic nephrectomy is now becoming the standard of care in many centers. Our institution has seen a dramatic transformation in practice patterns and patient outcomes in the 2 years following the introduction of laparoscopic nephrectomy. We compare the experience with laparoscopic and open nephrectomy within a single medical center. Methods: Data were collected for all patients undergoing elective nephrectomy (live donor, radical, simple, partial, and nephroureterectomy) between August 1998 and September 2002. Data were analyzed by Wilcoxon rank sum, chi-square, and Fishers exact test. A p-value <0.05 was considered significant. Results: Of the patients, 92 underwent open nephrectomy, and 118 were treated laparoscopically (87 hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy, 31 totally laparoscopic). There was one conversion (0.8%). Patient demographics and indications for surgery were equivalent for both groups. Mean operative time for laparoscopic nephrectomy (230 min) was longer than for open (187 min, p = 0.0001). Blood loss (97 ml vs 216 ml, p = 0.0001), length of stay (3.9 days vs 5.9 days, p = 0.0001), perioperative morbidity (14% vs 31%, p = 0.01), and wound complications (6.8% vs 27.1%, p = 0.0001) were all significantly less for laparoscopic nephrectomy. For live donors, time to convalescence was less (12 days vs 33 days, p = 0.02), but hospital charges were more for patients treated laparoscopically ($19,007 vs $13,581, p = 0.0001). Conclusions: Laparoscopic nephrectomy results in less blood loss, fewer hospital days, fewer complications, and more rapid recovery than open surgery. We believe that these benefits outweigh the higher hospital charges associated with the laparoscopic approach.     

Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication is less expensive than open Belsey Mark IV

Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication is a relatively new technique used to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The purpose of this study was to compare the cost to the patient and insurer of a laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LN) to an open Belsey Mark IV (B4), the previous standard operation for GERD at Emory University Hospital.A retrospective review of 20 consecutive patients undergoing LN or B4 for GERD was performed. Patients were well matched for age, severity of disease, and comorbid illness. The data were analyzed using an unpaired Student's t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank analysis.The results are as follows (mean±SD):We conclude that the charges for laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication are significantly less than the charges for Belsey Mark IV. The majority of the savings resulted from a shortened hospital stay.     

Laparoscopic and open live donor nephrectomy: a cost/benefit study

Recently, laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy has been developed in order to increase organ donation. In this study we compare and review the records of 10 donors operated by open extraperitoneal approach and of 10 donors operated by a laparoscopic transperitoneal approach (LSC). Results show less use of postoperative parenteral narcotics in the LSC group (109 mg vs 272 mg; P < 0.0005) than in the extraperitoneal group. Morbidity was similar in both groups. There was no difference in postoperative stay. Allograft kidney function was similar in both groups until 6 months after donation. The use of disposable laparoscopic material bears an extra cost of 900 US$. We can thus conclude that laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy is a safe procedure that significantly reduces postoperative pain, and is not detrimental to the allograft. The total cost of the laparoscopic procedure will be lower than that of the open approach if the length of postoperative stay is cut by 3 days. Received: 17 July 1998/Revised: 12 January 1999/Accepted: 13 September 1999     

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy for right kidneys: Experience in a German community hospital

Background Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has become the new gold standard for kidney procurement in many high-volume transplant centres worldwide, but it is often limited to left-sided donor kidneys. Concerns about adequate anatomical renal vessel length and sufficient surgical exposure are the main obstacles to the use of the laparoscopic approach for right kidney live donors as well. Material and methods From 1998 to 2006 we performed laparoscopic kidney procurement in 73 live kidney donors on an intention-to-treat basis, harvesting a total of 48 left (LKG) and 25 right kidneys (RKG) for transplantation. We compared these two groups with respect to operating time, conversion rate, complications, hospital stay, and recipient outcome. Results There were no differences in outcome of donor patients after left (D-LKG) or right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (D-RKG). Operating time was 160 min in D-RKG versus 164 min in D-LKG. Warm ischemia was below 150 s in both groups. Hospital stay was 7.0 (D-RKG) versus 6.7 days (D-LKG). Negative events on the donor site were one temporary nerve irritation in each group and one postoperative retroperitoneal hematoma in the left kidney group. Reasons to convert to open nephrectomy were bleeding in two patients in the left kidney group and adhesions in one patient in the right kidney group. The outcome of the recipients after left (R-LKG) or right kidney (R-RKG) transplantation was similar. One kidney was lost due to renal vein thrombosis (R-LKG). Postoperative ureter complications occurred in one patient of each group. One patient of the R-RKG and two patients of the R-LKG required lymphocele fenestration. All other kidney transplants worked without problems. Conclusion Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a safe procedure and has been established as the method of choice for live kidney donation in our clinic. Laparoscopic procurement of right and left kidneys can be performed with comparable quality and outcome for donors and recipients.     

后腹腔镜下肾肿瘤剜除术的临床疗效观察(附5例报告)

目的：探讨后腹腔镜下肾肿瘤剜除术的操作要点及临床价值。方法：采用后腹腔镜下肾肿瘤剜除术治疗肾肿瘤5例，其中肾癌3例，肾错钩瘤2例，瘤体直径1．5～4．0cm。具体方法是：①暴露瘤体和肾动脉；②采用硅胶管牵拉肾动脉，必要时可暂时阻断肾动脉；③于瘤体1cm正常肾组织处用电钩切除瘤体；④采用生物蛋白胶、止血纱布缝合加压处理创面出血。结果：手术均获成功。手术时间150～210min，术中出血80～350ml。术后1～2天肠道功能恢复并可床上活动，1～4天可下床活动。术后住院5～9天，平均7天。结论：后腹腔镜下肾肿瘤剜除术具有创伤小、康复快、安全、住院时间短等优点；对外生性生长、直径小于4cm瘤体，该法可作为首选手术方法。     

Laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy: outcomes analysis of 266 consecutive patients

Background  Minimally invasive surgical techniques have become the preferred method for live donor nephrectomy (DN) in many centers. We compared our experience with laparoscopic and open DN in a single institution. Methods  Data for 266 consecutive live DNs were collected. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were compared. Results  A total of 199 hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) DNs, 18 totally laparoscopic (TL), and 49 open DNs were performed. Laparoscopic DN was associated with a shorter operative time (p < 0.013), less blood loss (p < 0.0001), and shorter hospital stay (p < 0.0001) than open DN. Warm ischemia time was less for HAL versus TL DN (59.9 vs. 90.0 seconds; p < 0.0001). Compared with open DN, laparoscopic patients had fewer complications (p < 0.03), fewer wound infections (p < 0.004), less wound paresthesias (p < 0.0009), and fewer complaints of chronic incisional pain (p < 0.0001). Delayed graft function during the first 24 h postoperatively was significantly less for the laparoscopic DN versus the open cases (12.9% vs. 30.4%; p = 0.003), but the need for hemodialysis for the recipient was similar between groups (6.9% vs. 5%; p = not significant). Conclusions  Laparoscopic DN resulted in less blood loss, reduced operative time, and shorter hospital stay than open DN. Hand-assisted laparoscopic DN has the potential to decrease warm ischemia time for renal allografts. Donors managed laparoscopically had fewer complications, significantly less wound-related morbidity, and less delayed graft function than patients who underwent open DN.     

Laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy for large renal tumors: a long-term prospective comparison

PURPOSE: The role of laparoscopy in the management of large renal tumors (more than 7 cm) is not clearly established. We prospectively evaluated the feasibility, safety and long-term results of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for large renal tumors (T2N0M0) and compared the results with those of open radical nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1998 and 2006, 112 patients with clinical stage T2N0M0 renal carcinoma underwent radical nephrectomy at our institution. Clinical data were prospectively collected after categorizing the patients into group 1-41 with laparoscopy and group 2-71 with open surgery. The choice of procedure was nonrandomized and it depended on patient and surgeon preference and experience. RESULTS: The 2 groups were contemporary and comparable in terms of age, body mass index and mean tumor size (9.9 and 10.1 cm, respectively). Concomitant adrenalectomy was performed in 14 patients (34%) in group 1 and in 29 (41%) in group 2. Limited (hilar) lymphadenectomy was performed in 30 patients (73%) in group 1 and in 58 (81%) in group 2. Group 1 patients experienced significantly less blood loss, and had a decreased analgesic requirement, shorter hospital stay and more rapid convalescence, although they required longer operative time (180.8 vs 165.3 minutes, p=0.029). The 2 groups were followed for a similar period (mean 51.4 vs 57.2 months) and there was no difference in 5-year survival data. There were no local or port site recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for clinical stage T2 renal tumors is effective with the advantages of less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, decreased analgesic requirement and rapid recovery compared with open radical nephrectomy. Long-term results are also similar in the 2 groups of patients. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for large tumors is a technically difficult, challenging procedure and it should be attempted by surgeons with significant experience.     

Laparoscopic versus open peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion cost analysis

Background

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a cost-effective alternative to hemodialysis (HD). PD catheters have traditionally been inserted through a small open incision, but insertion using laparoscopic visualization has become increasingly popular and is associated with less catheter malfunction. The aim of this study was to compare costs of laparoscopic and open insertion strategies while taking into account postoperative complications and future salvage procedures.

Methods

A decision analysis model was constructed to simulate 1 y outcomes after PD catheter insertion by either the open or laparoscopic approach. Possible outcomes after PD catheter placement included functional catheter, infection, and catheter malfunction. Ultimately, patients continued with successful PD or switched to HD. Baseline probabilities, costs, and ranges were determined from a critical review of the literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the model strength over a range of clinically relevant probabilities.

Results

The total annual costs, including postoperative management and dialysis treatment, were $69,491 for laparoscopic insertion and $69,960 for open insertion. In case of a catheter malfunction, an initial attempt at salvage by fluoroscopy-guided wire manipulation cost less than a first attempt by laparoscopic repositioning.

Conclusions

When accounting for a year of postoperative management and treatment, laparoscopic insertion can be less costly than open insertion in the hands of an experienced surgeon. Despite higher initial costs, PD catheter insertion under laparoscopic visualization can have lower total costs due to fewer postoperative complications. With increasing emphasis on cost-effective care, laparoscopic insertion is a valuable tool for initiating PD.     

Body image after laparoscopic or open donor nephrectomy

Background Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is thought to result in a better cosmetic outcome for the altruistic healthy donor than open donor nephrectomy (ODN). To the authors knowledge, no studies have established the opinion of donors with respect to their bodily appearance. This study investigates the body image of donors after ODN and LDN.Methods Donors who underwent surgery between 1994 and 2001 were invited to fill out a body image questionnaire. This questionnaire consists of two subscales: the body image scale (BIS) and the cosmetic scale (CS). A total of 56 LDN subjects and 69 ODN subjects responded to the questionnaire (72% of 174 donors).Results Both groups were comparable in terms of gender, current age, and body mass index (BMI). The time from donation until the time of this study (follow-up assessment) was significantly longer for the ODN groups. The BIS and CS were found to be comparable between the two groups. No associations were found between BIS or CS and follow-up duration. There also was no association between BIS or CS and gender, age and BMI.Conclusions The body image ratings of donors do not significantly differ after ODN or LDN.     

A comparison of traditional open,minimal-incision donor nephrectomy and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and minimal-incision donor nephrectomy (MILD) are less invasive procedures than the traditional open donor nephrectomy approach (ODN). This study compares donor and recipient outcome following those three different procedures. Sixty consecutive donor nephrectomies were studied (n=20 in each group). Intra-operative variables, analgesic requirements, donor recovery, donor/recipient complications and allograft function were recorded prospectively. Operating and first warm ischaemia times were longer for LDN than for ODN and MILD (232±35 vs 121±24 vs 147±27 min, P<0.001; 4±1 vs 2±2 vs 2±1 min, P<0.01). Postoperative morphine requirements were significantly higher after ODN than after MILD and LDN (182±113 vs 86±48 vs 71±45 mg; P<0.0001). There was no episode of delayed graft function in this study. Donors returned to work quicker after LDN than after ODN and MILD (6±2 vs 11±5 vs 10±7; P=0.055). Donor and recipient complication rates and recipient allograft function were comparable. We concluded that MILD and LDN reduce postoperative pain and allow a faster recovery without compromising recipient outcome.     

Laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy: a 9-year experience

PURPOSE: The laparoscopic approach for renal cell carcinoma is slowly evolving. We report our experience with laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and compare it to a contemporary cohort of patients with renal cell carcinoma who underwent open radical nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1990 to 1999, 32 males and 28 females underwent 61 laparoscopic radical nephrectomies for suspicious renal cell carcinoma. Clinical data from a computerized database were reviewed and compared to a contemporary group of 33 patients who underwent open radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. RESULTS: Patients in the laparoscopic radical nephrectomy group had significantly reduced, estimated blood loss (172 versus 451 ml., p <0.001), hospital stay (3.4 versus 5.2 days, p <0.001), pain medication requirement (28.0 versus 78.3 mg., p <0.001) and quicker return to normal activity than patients in the open radical nephrectomy group (3.6 versus 8.1 weeks, p <0.001). The majority of laparoscopic specimens (65%) were morcellated. Operating time and cost were higher in the laparoscopic than the open nephrectomy group. Average followup was 25 months (range 3 to 73) for the laparoscopic and 27.5 months (range 7 to 90) for the open group. Renal cell carcinoma in 3 patients (8%) recurred in the laparoscopic group versus renal cell carcinoma in 3 (9%) in the open group. When stratified patients with tumors larger than 4 to 10 cm. experienced similar benefits and results as patients with tumors less than or equal to 4 cm. To date there have been no instances of trocar or intraperitoneal seeding in the laparoscopic radical nephrectomy group. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, although technically demanding, is a viable alternative for managing localized renal tumors up to 10 cm. It affords patients with renal tumors an improved postoperative course with less pain and a quicker recovery while providing similar efficacy at 2-year followup for patients with T1 and T2 tumors.     

腹腔镜活体亲属供肾切取术临床疗效观察(附5例报告)

目的：总结腹腔镜技术行活体亲属供肾切取术的临床经验，探讨其安全性及临床效果。方法：分别采用经腹腔及经后腹腔途径的腹腔镜技术行活体亲属供肾切取术5例。结果：手术平均用时4h 45min，出血50～1000ml，热缺血时间1min 55s～3min 10s；开放血流后10-30s供肾泌尿，供者术后肾功能正常，7天拆线出院，无手术并发症。结论：与传统手术切取供肾相比，腹腔镜活体亲属供肾切取术使供肾者损伤小，恢复快，且供肾质量仍可得到保障。     

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a comparison with the conventional open approach

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is an emerging technique that has not yet gained widespread acceptance in the transplant community due to perceived technical difficulties. However, the potential advantages of decreasing donor morbidity, decreasing hospital stay and improving convalescence while producing a functional kidney for the recipient may prove to enhance living related renal transplantation. We report our early experience with laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 50 consecutive laparoscopic nephrectomies performed from October 1998 to May 2000 and compared them with 50 consecutive open donor nephrectomies, which served as historical controls. RESULTS: Donor age, donor sex and number of HLA mismatches did not differ statistically in the 2 groups. In the laparoscopic and open nephrectomy groups mean followup was 109 and 331 days (p = 0.0001), mean operative time was 234 and 208 minutes (p = 0.0068), mean estimated blood loss was 114 and 193 ml (p = 0.0001), and mean hospital stay was 3.5 and 4.7 days (p = 0.0001), respectively. Average renal warm ischemia time was 2.8 minutes in the laparoscopic nephrectomy group. Serum creatinine did not differ statistically in the 2 groups preoperatively or postoperatively at days 1 and 5, and 1 month. The rate of recipient ureteral complications in the laparoscopic and open nephrectomy groups was 2% (1 of 50 cases) and 6% (3 of 50), respectively (not significant). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is an attractive alternative to open donor nephrectomy. Laparoscopic nephrectomy results in less postoperative discomfort, an improved cosmetic result and more rapid recovery for the donor with equivalent functional results and complications.     

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy vs. open live donor nephrectomy: a quality of life and functional study

BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared the quality of life (QoL) and functional recuperation of laproscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) vs. open donor nephrectomy (ODN) donors. This study utilized the SF-36 health survey, single-item health-related quality of life (HRQOL) score, and a functional assessment questionnaire ('Donor Survey'). METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to 100 LDN and 50 ODN donors. These donors were patients whose procedures were performed at The University Hospital and The Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, Ohio. RESULTS: A total of 46 (46%) LDN and 21 (42%) ODN donors returned the completed surveys. The demographics of the two groups were similar. LDN patients reported a more rapid return to 100% normal health (69 vs. 116 d; p = 0.24), part-time work (21.9 vs. 23.2 d; p = 0.09), and necessitated fewer physician office visits post-operative (2.8 vs. 4.4; p = 0.01). ODN patients reported shorter duration of oral pain medication use (13.4 vs. 7.2 d; p = 0.02). However, a greater number of ODN patients reported post-surgical chronic pain (3 vs. 6; p < 0.05) and hernia (0 vs. 2; p = 0.19). The overall QoL for both groups was comparable with the general USA population. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the decisions of many kidney transplant centers to adopt LDN programs as standard of care.     

Laparoscopic gastric bypass for gastric outlet obstruction is associated with smoother, faster recovery and shorter hospital stay compared with open surgery

Background/Purpose Laparoscopic gastric bypass for relief of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is feasible and safe. However, comparative data to confirm the benefits of the laparoscopic approach remain scarce. Methods Between 1998 and 2003, 26 patients underwent 15 laparoscopic (surgeon A) and 12 open (surgeon B) gastrojejunostomies (GJs) for GOO. The indications for surgery included malignant (n = 17) and benign (n = 10) diseases. Results There were no conversions to open surgery in the laparoscopic group, and no operative mortality occurred in either group. The groups were comparable for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score, frequencies of previous abdominal surgery and of malignant or benign disease, and type of GJ fashioned. There were no differences between the laparoscopic and open groups with regard to the operating time (median, 90 vs 111 min; P = 0.113), and patients receiving intraoperative blood transfusion. However, laparoscopic surgery was associated with significantly shorter durations of postoperative intravenous hydration (60 vs 234 h; P = 0.001), opiate analgesia (49 vs 128 h; P = 0.025), and hospital stay (3 vs 15 days; P = 0.005). Operative morbidity occurred more frequently following open surgery (33% vs 13%; P = 0.219). Conclusions Laparoscopic GJ for the relief of GOO is associated with a smoother and more rapid postoperative recovery and shorter hospital stay compared with open surgery. In experienced hands, the laparoscopic approach to GJ should become the new gold standard.     

Use of a minimally invasive donor nephrectomy program to select technique for live donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND: Live donor nephrectomy (LDN) is a major surgical procedure with an accepted low mortality and morbidity. Minimally invasive donor nephrectomy (MIDN) has been shown to decrease the wound morbidity associated with the lumbotomy of the classic open technique. Transplant programs face the challenge of initiating their MIDN programs without jeopardizing the safety of the donor and the graft quality. We present the experience at the University of Calgary after the initiation of a MIDN program, with a preoperative selective approach using the 3 major techniques for LDN. METHODS: From December 2001 to May 2004, 50 consecutive, accepted, live kidney donors were evaluated and chosen to undergo nephrectomy by an open, laparoscopic, or hand-assisted technique. Patients were chosen for a particular technique based on the criteria of vascular anatomy, size of abdominal cavity, previous surgery, and technical implications for the recipient. RESULTS: A total of 15 open, 11 laparoscopic, and 24 hand-assisted nephrectomies were performed. There were no statistically significant differences in sex, age, or body mass index between the groups. There were statistically significant differences in surgical times (P < .001) and in the number of days spent in the hospital (P < .001). All kidneys had primary function. There were 2 conversions in the hand-assisted group and 1 blood transfusion in the open group. Death-censored graft survival was 100% with an observation time of 20 months (SD +/- 9 months; range = 3-32 months). One graft from the hand-assisted group was lost from patient death with functioning graft 8 months after transplant. CONCLUSIONS: The learning curve for MIDN does not necessarily need to impact donor or recipient outcomes. The initiation of an MIDN program can be implemented safely if the cases are selected carefully and the use of the classic open technique is kept as an alternative.     

腹腔镜肾部分切除术

目的:探讨腹腔镜肾部分切除术临床应用的可行性。方法:为1例重复肾畸形患者行腹腔镜肾部分切除术。结果:手术顺利,无并发症,术后7d出院,恢复良好。结论:腹腔镜肾部分切除术具有患者创伤小,出血少,解剖清晰,康复快,并发症少等优点。     

The cost of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy in a community hospital

This retrospective study reviewed the hospital and professional costs, charges, and reimbursements for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (lap chole) and open cholecystectomy (open chole) and compared the two procedures. There was no significant difference in hospital costs between lap and open chole procedures; however, there were marked differences in the categories of costs for each procedure. The mean total (hospital and professional) charge was 8% greater for lap chole. The mean total (hospital and professional) reimbursement for patients with private insurance was 23% greater for lap chole, but no significant difference was seen for patients on Medicare or Medicaid. Lap chole patients returned to work 11 days sooner than open chole patients; this can result in a 69% decrease in short-term disability costs to employers. The clinical variables that significantly affect total charges and reimbursement are discussed.