Laparoscopy-assisted live donor nephrectomy: a modified cost-effective approach for developing countries

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Because of the prohibitive cost of laparoscopic disposable instruments such as the PneumoSleeve, Endocatch, and vascular staples, laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy has not gained wide acceptance in many developing countries. To circumvent this problem, we have developed a cost-saving approach, which is described herein and compared with the open method. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-nine patients underwent laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy at our institute, of which two were performed by the hand-assisted technique, five by the technique described by Fabrizio et al and forty-two by our modified cost-saving laparoscopy-assisted technique (LD). The latter patients were compared with 50 patients who had a standard open donor nephrectomy (OD) through a rib-resecting (12th rib) flank incision. Our technique is similar to the procedure described by Fabrizio et al except for a 6- to 8-cm incision placed in the subcostal region to retrieve the kidney after the renal vessels are cut and ligated as in the open procedure. The costs of the various techniques at our institute were compared. RESULTS: The LD and OD groups were similar in terms of age, weight, side of nephrectomy, and number of renal vessels. The operative time was longer in the LD group than in the OD group (180.7 +/- 18 minutes v 101.5 +/- 10.4 minutes), whereas the mean intraoperative blood loss was less (85.5 +/- 21.35 v 220 +/- 22.5 mL; P < 0.001). Warm ischemia time and recipient outcomes were comparable in the two groups. Patients in the LD group had lower postoperative narcotic (tramadol hydrochloride) requirement (155.3 +/- 53.3 mg v 251.8 +/- 63.1 mg; P < 0.001) and earlier discharge from the hospital (3.14 v 5.7 days; P < 0.001). The mean expense incurred was US$175 v US$160 in the LD and OD groups, respectively. The cost of the hand-assisted and standard laparoscopic techniques was significantly higher than that of our modified technique. CONCLUSIONS: Our modified technique of laparoscopy-assisted live-donor nephrectomy avoids the use of costly disposables yet offers the advantages of lesser morbidity and small incision of LD. It is cost effective and is an alternative to open nephrectomy in the developing world.     

Cytokine response to surgical stress: comparison of pure laparoscopic, hand-assisted laparoscopic, and open nephrectomy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laparoscopic surgery has been shown to induce less immune suppression than open surgery, presumably because there is less tissue trauma, a factor that may impact oncologic-disease control. The objective of this study was to compare the cytokine and stress response associated with pure laparoscopic, hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL), and open nephrectomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifteen female farm pigs (45-50 kg) underwent transperitoneal laparoscopic, handassisted (HAL), or open nephrectomy (N = 5 in each group). At 1, 4, 24, and 48 hours post-nephrectomy, blood and peritoneal fluid samples were collected for measurement of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha, interleukin (IL)-1beta, and IL-6 using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) techniques. Body temperature and serum glucose and cortisol were also measured. RESULTS: No evidence of perioperative infection was detected in any animal through temperature and glucose monitoring. Operating time and blood loss were comparable among the three groups. Peak serum cortisol concentrations were significantly higher in the HAL group than in the pure laparoscopic group at 24 hours (P = 0.02). Serum TFNalpha concentrations were significantly lower in the pure laparoscopy group (40 +/- 6 pg/mL) than in the HAL and open-nephrectomy groups (81 +/- 6 pg/mL and 83 +/- 17 pg/mL, respectively; P < 0.05), although no differences between groups were found in the serum IL-1beta and IL-6 concentrations. Peritoneal IL-1beta was significantly higher in the HAL than in the open-nephrectomy group (2993 +/- 507 pg/mL and 733 +/- 185 pg/mL, respectively; P = 0.05). Peritoneal IL-6 was significantly lower in the pure laparoscopy group (694 +/- 234 pg/mL) than in the open-surgery group (1668 +/- 312 pg/mL) (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Pure laparoscopic surgery in pigs elicits a less-robust cytokine response than HAL or open nephrectomy with respect to serum TNFalpha and peritoneal IL-6 concentrations, perhaps reflecting less impairment of the immune system. Clinical confirmation is required, and the implications with regard to oncologic tumor surveillance in humans require further study.     

Comparison of neuromuscular injuries to the surgeon during hand-assisted and standard laparoscopic urologic surgery

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Hand-assisted procedures have assumed a greater role in the practice of many laparoscopists. We surveyed major laparoscopy program directors to compare the incidence and location of neuromuscular injury to the surgeon during hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) and standard laparoscopic (SL) surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire on neuromuscular injuries was e-mailed to 42 laparoscopic program directors. Respondents were instructed to report only injuries or pain associated with laparoscopic surgery when they were the primary responsible surgeon and not during open or endoscopic procedures. RESULTS: Surveys were returned from 23 attending laparoscopic surgeons and 2 laparoscopic fellows. Surgeons reported an average of 3.9 HAL and 6.3 SL cases per month as the primary surgeon. The HAL was completed with the GelPort, LapDisk, Omniport, or a combination of devices 55%, 22%, 5%, and 14%, respectively, of the time. Comparing HAL with SL, there was significantly more hand/wrist, forearm, and shoulder pain/injuries associated with HAL (P < 0.004). There was significantly more neck pain associated with SL than HAL (P < 0.003), but no significant difference in lower-back pain (P = 0.40). Comparing the two most commonly used hand-assist devices (GelPort and LapDisk), the LapDisk demonstrated significantly more hand/wrist pain or injury (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Hand-assisted laparoscopy is associated with more frequent neuromuscular strain to the upper extremity than SL, but SL surgeons experience more neck pain or injury. Surgeon discomfort is also dependent on the type of hand-assist device. The long-term consequences of physical strain on the laparoscopic surgeon are unknown currently, but measures to minimize neuromuscular strain should be considered.     

Laparoscopic v laparoscopy-assisted donor nephrectomy in the porcine model

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is an established procedure in the porcine model. We sought to compare intraoperative variables between live laparoscopic (LAP) and laparoscopy-assisted (LAP-A) donor nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight domestic pigs underwent either traditional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (N = 4) or laparoscopy-assisted donor nephrectomy (N = 4) using the Pneumosleeve followed by conventional heterotopic autotransplantation. RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between the groups with regard to vessel length, ureteral length, or postoperative urine output. The operating room time was 108+/-12 minutes in the LAP group v 75.8+/-10.3 minutes in the LAP-A group (P = 0.0065). Although the difference was not statistically significant, warm ischemic time, tended to be lower in the LAP-A than the LAP group: 70+/-3.0 seconds v 135+/-57 seconds, respectively (P = 0.059). Graft survival was identical in the two groups. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy-assisted (via Pneumosleeve) live donor nephrectomy shortens the operative time without affecting graft survival in the domestic swine model.     

Intact specimen extraction during renal laparoscopy: muscle-splitting versus muscle-cutting incision

PURPOSE: To determine whether a muscle-splitting extraction incision decreases patient morbidity after renal laparoscopic surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients undergoing laparoscopic simple nephrectomy, radical nephrectomy, or nephroureterectomy had intact specimen extraction through a muscle-splitting incision. The operative and recovery data of these patients were retrospectively compared with those of a matched cohort of 21 patients who underwent specimen extraction through a muscle-cutting incision. With the exception of a greater percentage of male patients in the muscle-cutting group (86% v 52%), there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. RESULTS: In the muscle-splitting and muscle-cutting groups, there was no significant differences in regard to analgesic use (9.0 +/- 6.6 mg of morphine sulfate equivalent v 7.9 +/- 4.9; P < 0.51), hospital stay (31.2 hours v 30 hours; P < 0.79), recovery (6.7 +/- 4.7 days v 5.7 +/- 4.7 days; P < 0.38), or convalescence (4.2 +/- 2.2 weeks v 4.1 +/- 2.0 weeks; P < 0.90). CONCLUSION: A muscle-splitting incision for intact renal specimen extraction does not necessarily decrease postoperative morbidity compared with a muscle-cutting extraction.     

Minimally Invasive and Open Donor Nephrectomy: Lessons Learned From a French Multicenter Experience

BackgroundWe evaluated different techniques of donor nephrectomy.MethodsOutcomes of 4 surgical approaches (open surgery [OS], standard laparoscopy [SL], hand-assisted laparoscopy [HAL], and robot-assisted la`paroscopy [RAL]) were compared.ResultsA total of 264 nephrectomies were performed: 65 in the OS group, 65 in the SL group, 65 in the HAL group, and 69 in RAL group. Operative time was longer for the RAL group (P < .001) with a mean time of 202 minutes (RAL), 182 minutes (OS), 173 minutes (SL), and 157 minutes (HAL). Complications (P = .002) and consumption of morphine derivates (P = .31) were lower for the RAL group (P = .0002). The visual analog scale pain scores (P = .002), hospital stay (P = .023), and time to return to full activities (P = .79) were higher for OS.ConclusionsThe 4 different nephrectomy surgical approaches had similar favorable results. The robot-assisted technique presented as an alternative option, with low incidence of complications, less pain, and results comparable to the other techniques.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: comparison with transabdominal radical nephrectomy

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (HALN) has benefits over the traditional transabdominal radical nephrectomy. More specifically we focused on the use of the hand-assisted technique as a definitive oncologic procedure for renal cancers. This study is a retrospective nonrandomized study comparing 12 hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomies with 12 transabdominal radical nephrectomies. All patients included in the study had the preoperative diagnosis of renal mass. HALN population averaged 1.83 +/- 1.64 (mean +/- standard deviation) major comorbidities versus 1.08 +/- 0.8 open (P = 0.032). The HALN OR time averaged 103 +/- 32.8 versus 57 +/- 18.3 minutes open (P = 0.001). The estimated blood loss mean for HALN was 83 versus 318 cm3 open (P = 0.001). Length of stay for HALN was 4.9 +/- 2.2 versus 5.9 +/- 2.9 days (P = 0.35). Days to regular diet was 2.9 +/- 2.3 in HALN versus 3.5 +/- 2.11 open (P = 0.52). Days of intravenous pain medications were 1.8 +/- 0.72 HALN versus 3.0 +/- 1.28 open (P = 0.016). Postoperative complication rates for the two groups were identical: two of 12 (ileus and post-operative bleeding). Tumor size mean was 6.8 +/- 2.99 cm for HALN versus 4.2 +/- 1.29 cm open (P = 0.012). Tumor margins were negative for 12 of 12 in HALN versus 11 of 12 open. Selection bias (selecting ailing patients to the HALN cohort) diminished the statistical significance of our postoperative recovery data. It is likely that a prospectively randomized study with a larger population may prove the hand-assisted approach equal if not superior to the open technique. The use of HALN in patients with renal tumors is an effective alternative to traditional transabdominal radical nephrectomy.     

Hand-assisted and conventional laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a comparison of two contemporary techniques

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laparoscopic nephrectomy may make kidney donation more attractive. Modifications such as hand assistance may improve surgical outcomes. We compared our initial experience with hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy with that of the conventional laparoscopic technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two series of similar patients underwent conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN; N = 15) or hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HLDN; N = 29). Operative time, warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss, complications, analgesic use, postoperative recovery, and serum creatinine concentration were compared. RESULTS: Open conversion was required in one HLDN patient because of intra-abdominal adhesions, and this patient was excluded from further analysis. The operative time, time to kidney extraction, and warm ischemia time were significantly shorter in the HLDN group, averaging 204.8 v 275.7 minutes, 173.4 v 239.3 minutes, and 2 minutes 21 seconds v 3 minutes 45 seconds, respectively. The intraoperative complication rates were 3.6% and 13.3%, respectively (P = 0.07). The postoperative complication rates were 6.8% and 6.7%. All grafts were functioning at the end of the study period, and there were no differences in rejection episodes, need for dialysis, complications, or nadir creatinine concentration according to the method of harvest. CONCLUSIONS: Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy provides shorter operative and warm ischemia times without a significant increase in donor morbidity.     

Comparison of laparoscopic versus hand-assisted live donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to compare hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy with the classic laparoscopic method, using meta-analytical techniques. METHODS: A literature search was performed for studies comparing hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy with classic laparoscopic nephrectomy for live kidney donation between 1999 and 2005. The following end points were evaluated: operative time, warm ischemia time, intraoperative adverse events, donor and recipient postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Nine comparative studies matched the selection criteria, reporting on 376 patients, of whom 202 (53.7%) had hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy and 174 (46.3%) had the classic laparoscopic technique. Conversion to open surgery was 2.97% in the hand-assisted group and 4.60% in the laparoscopic group (P=0.35). Total operative and warm ischemia times were significantly shorter for hand-assisted laparoscopy by 30.03 minutes (P=0.02) and 1.14 minutes (P<0.001), respectively. The intraoperative blood loss was less for the hand-assisted laparoscopy group by 34.16 mL (P=0.008), although intraoperative (3.46% vs. 7.47%; P=0.24) and postoperative (5.94% vs. 10.34%; P=0.30) donor complications and recipient complications (including delayed graft function and primary nonfunction, 8.41% vs. 7.42%; P=0.32) were similar between the hand-assisted and laparoscopic groups. CONCLUSION: Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy appeared to have the same donor and recipient complication rate with standard laparoscopy but offered substantial advantages in terms of shortened operative and warm ischemia time as well as decreased intraoperative bleeding.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy versus open nephroureterectomy for the treatment of transitional-cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: For patients with upper tract transitional-cell carcinoma (TCC), nephroureterectomy with removal of a bladder cuff is the standard of care. Historically, it has been performed using two incisions or one large incision extending from the lateral flank to the symphysis pubis. We describe an alternative using endoscopic management of the bladder cuff combined with hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) nephroureterectomy. We compared our results using these minimally invasive advances with those of a contemporary open nephroureterectomy series. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between May 1998 and June 1999, we performed 11 HAL nephroureterectomies with endoscopic management of the bladder cuff for the treatment of upper tract TCC. The results were compared with those in a contemporary series of 11 patients undergoing the traditional open operation at our institution. The patient age, male:female ratio, and ASA classification were similar in the two groups. Intraoperative measures considered were operative time, estimated blood loss, need for transfusion, complications, specimen weight and volume, pathologic stage and grade of the tumor, and the status of the surgical margins. Postoperative endpoints were time to sustained fluid intake; epidural, parenteral, and oral narcotic requirements; length of stay; and complications. Follow-up, specifically disease recurrence and overall survival, was recorded. RESULTS: The mean operative time was 291 minutes for HAL v 232 minutes for the open operation (P = NS). The average blood loss was 144 v 311 mL (P = 0.04), the mean specimen weight 368 v 392 g (P = NS), and the mean specimen volume was 630 v 693 cc (P = NS). No patient in the HAL group had a positive surgical margin, but one patient in the open surgery group did. The time to sustained fluid intake postoperatively averaged 1.4 v 2.3 days for the HAL and open groups, respectively (P = NS). The epidural narcotic requirement was 0 v 2.7 days (P < 0.001), the mean parenteral narcotic requirement was 45 v 44 mg of morphine sulfate equivalent (P = NS), and the oral narcotic requirement was 5.8 v 16 tablets (P < 0.04). The average length of stay was 4.6 days for the HAL group v 6.1 days for the open group (P = 0.04). In both groups, 7 of the 11 patients (63%) were without evidence of disease with a mean follow-up of 13 (HAL) and 17 (open) months. CONCLUSIONS: Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy with endoscopic management of the bladder cuff is an efficacious alternative to open surgery. The operative time, specimen weight and size, and risk of recurrence for the two procedures are similar. However, convalescence, as measured by pain medication requirements and length of stay, is significantly better with laparoscopy. Longer follow-up with larger numbers of patients is in progress.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy versus transperitoneal anterior approach in living donors for renal transplantation

The objective of this study was to compare two surgical approaches for living donor nephrectomy: transperitoneal anterior approach and the hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy. Between January 2001 and October 2003 we performed 63 kidney transplantations from living donors. The transperitoneal anterior approach was used in 36 cases and the hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy in 27. Outcomes were compared in terms of hospital stay, postoperative analgesia, and graft quality. Mean hospital stay was 4.7 days in the transperitoneal anterior approach group and 3.7 days in the hand-assisted laparoscopic group (P < .005). Postoperative analgesia dosage was significantly lower in the hand-assisted laparoscopic group (P < .001). Surgical complications and graft quality were similar. We concluded that hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy patients had shorter hospital stays and less pain in the postoperative period, with better cosmetic results and equivalent graft quality compared to transperitoneal anterior approach patients.     

Comparison of outcomes in noncomplicated and in higher-risk donors after standard versus hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy

Hand-assisted techniques facilitated dissemination of the laparoscopic approach in live kidney donors and addressed concerns regarding potential procedural complications. We report our experience with both standard and hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy in routine, complicated, and higher-risk donors. From July 1999 to September 2002, 47 donors underwent standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (SLDN; n = 29) or hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN; n = 18). Donors were "complicated" if they were > 60 years of age, obese, refused blood-product transfusion, had multiple renal arteries or veins, or had right nephrectomies. "Higher-risk" donors had two or more risk factors. Results for SLDN and HALDN were compared for the overall groups and for the "complicated" and "higher-risk" groups. No donor required blood transfusion or reoperation. Warm-ischemia times were shorter in left nephrectomies (191 +/- 72 seconds vs. 337 +/- 95 seconds, P = 0.005), and blood loss was greater in patients with a body mass index > or = 30 kg/m2 (296 +/- 232 mL vs. 170 +/- 139 mL, P = 0.03). Higher-risk donors had an increased operative blood loss and longer hospital stay than low-risk donors. Mean donor creatinine at discharge was 1.19 +/- 0.2 mg/dL. Comparison of SLDN versus HALDN revealed shorter operating times for the latter, which approached statistical significance. Warm-ischemia time, operative blood loss, length of hospitalization, and donor and recipient discharge creatinines were similar for both groups. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy can be applied to selected higher-risk donors with outcomes comparable to uncomplicated donors. Hand-assisted techniques facilitate the procedure during the learning curve, with advantages similar to standard laparoscopic techniques.     

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Living-Donor Nephrectomy as an Alternative to Traditional Laparoscopic Living-Donor Nephrectomy

The benefits of laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (LDN) are well described, while similar data on hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (HALDN) are lacking. We compare hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy with open donor nephrectomy. One hundred consecutive hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (10/98-8/01) donor/recipient pairs were compared to 50 open donor nephrectomy pairs (8/97-1/00). Mean donor weights were similar (179.6 +/- 40.8 vs. 167.4 +/- 30.3 lb; p = NS), while donor age was greater among hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (38.2 +/- 9.5 vs. 31.2 +/- 7.8 year; p < 0.01). Right nephrectomies was fewer in hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy [17/100 (17%) vs. 22/50 (44%); p < 0.05]. Operative time for hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (3.9 +/- 0.7 vs. 2.9 +/- 0.5 h; p < 0.01) was longer; however, return to diet (6.9 +/- 2.8 vs. 25.6 +/- 6.1 h; p < 0.01), narcotics requirement (17.9 +/- 6.3 vs. 56.3 +/- 6.4h; p < 0.01) and length of stay (51.7 +/- 22.2 vs. 129.6 +/- 65.7 h; p < 0.01) were less than open donor nephrectomy. Costs were similar ($11072 vs. 10840). Graft function and 1-week Cr of 1.4 +/- 0.9 vs. 1.6 +/- 1.1 g/dL (p = NS) were similar. With the introduction of HALDN, our laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy program has increased by 20%. Thus, similar to traditional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy provides advantages over open donor nephrectomy without increasing costs.     

Retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy: a comparison with the open approach in respect of early postoperative pain management

INTRODUCTION: We retrospectively compared perioperative donor outcomes and early postoperative pain control after retroperitoneoscopic (RLDN) and standard open (OLDN) living donor nephrectomy. METHODS: One hundred donors included fifty after RLDN (37 women/13 men) and 50 after OLDN (35 women/15 men) were retrospectively analyzed for basic analgesics, for opioid consumption, and for visual analog scale (VAS) to verify the experienced pain. The donors were questioned in the morning and evening of the first through fifth postoperative days. RESULTS: The mean age of both groups was equal. The mean operating time was 149.7 +/- 48.2 minutes (60 to 270) for RLDN and 164.1 +/- 30.3 minutes (60 to 240) for OLDN (P = NS). The mean warm ischemia time was 120 +/- 36 seconds (50 to 240) and 114 +/- 31 seconds (60 to 190) for the RLDN and OLDN groups, respectively (P = NS). The mean evening VAS for RLDN versus OLDN on postoperative days 1 to 5 was: 2.1 versus 2.2 (P = NS), 0.9 versus 1.8 (P = .009), 0.5 versus 1.3 (P = .016), 0.1 versus 0.7 (P = .013), and 0.1 versus 0.7 (P = .013), respectively. In both groups there was a tendency toward a higher VAS score in the morning than in the evening. RLDN donors showed significantly earlier period free of pain (VAS = 0) than those after OLDN. There was a significant difference of being free from any opiate between both groups after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: After RLDN donors experienced less postoperative pain than after OLDN over the early postoperative days. Therefore, postoperative regional anesthesia is not necessary for donors operated by a retroperitoneoscopic approach.     

A randomized clinical trial of living donor nephrectomy: a plea for a differentiated appraisal of mini-open muscle splitting incision and hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

A randomized controlled trial was designed to compare various outcome variables of the retroperitoneal mini‐open muscle splitting incision (MSI) technique and the transperitoneal hand‐assisted laparoscopic technique (HAL) in performing living donor nephrectomies. Fifty living kidney donors were randomized to MSI or HAL. Primary endpoint was pain experience scored on a visual analogue scale (VAS). After MSI living donors indicated lower median (range) VAS scores at rest than HAL living donors on postoperative day 2.5 [10 (0–44) vs. 15 (0–70), P = 0.043] and day 3 [7 (0–28) vs. 10 (0–91), P = 0.023] and lower VAS scores while coughing on postoperative day 3 [20 (0–73) vs. 42 (6–86), P = 0.001], day 7 [8 (0–66) vs. 33 (3–76), P < 0.001] and day 14 [2 (0–17) vs. 12 (0–51), P = 0.009]. The MSI technique also resulted in reduced morphine requirement, better scores on three domains of the RAND‐36, reduced costs and reduced CRP and IL‐6 levels. The HAL technique was superior in operating time and postoperative decrease of hemoglobin level. The MSI technique is superior to the HAL technique in performing living donor nephrectomies with regard to postoperative pain experience. This study reopens the discussion of the way to go in performing the living donor nephrectomy.     

Gabapentin provides effective postoperative analgesia whether administered pre-emptively or post-incision

PURPOSE: We investigated the effects of pre-incision and post-incision administration of gabapentin on postoperative pain and fentanyl consumption associated with open donor nephrectomy. METHODS: Sixty ASA I subjects were randomly allocated into three groups to receive gabapentin 600 mg two hours before surgery and placebo after surgical incision (pre-incision group), placebo two hours before surgery and gabapentin 600 mg after surgical incision (post-incision group), or placebo two hours before surgery and after surgical incision (placebo group). After surgery, pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS), (1-10 cm) at time points 0, 6, 12, 18, and 24 hr. Subjects received patient-controlled-analgesia (fentanyl 1.0 microg x kg(-1) subject activated dose). Total fentanyl consumption in each group was recorded. RESULTS: Subjects of pre-incision and post-incision groups had lower VAS scores at all time points (3.1 +/- 1.8, 2.9 +/- 1.3, 2.8 +/- 1.3, 2.5 +/- 0.9, 2.5 +/- 1.5 and 3.6 +/- 1.1, 3.0 +/- 1.2, 3.2 +/- 1.1, 2.9 +/- 1.0, 2.6 +/- 2.2) compared to placebo group (6.6 +/- 1.3, 5.0 +/- 1.0, 4.4 +/- 0.7, 4.2 +/- 0.8, 3.9 +/- 1.0). They also used less fentanyl (563.3 microg +/- 252.8 and 624.0 microg +/- 210.5 respectively) compared to placebo (924.7 microg +/- 417.5), (P < 0.05). No difference in total fentanyl consumption and pain scores at any time points were observed between pre- and post-incision groups. CONCLUSION: Pre-incision administration of 600 mg gabapentin has no added benefit over post-incision administration in terms of pain scores and fentanyl consumption in subjects undergoing open donor nephrectomy.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy for stage T1 and large stage T2 renal tumors

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Standard laparoscopic nephrectomy (LN) has been shown to be as effective oncologically as open surgery for both stage T1 and stage T2 renal tumors. While much has been published regarding the increasing indications for laparoscopic nephrectomy, there is little in the literature regarding the advantages of hand-assisted laparoscopy (HAL) for the treatment of large (>7-cm) stage T2 renal tumors. To our knowledge, this study is the first to directly compare the results in pathologic stage T1 and stage T2 tumors. Our aim was to assess whether HAL nephrectomy for these larger tumors maintains the same advantages enjoyed by HAL for the smaller ones (<7 cm). PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred HAL renal extirpative procedures were performed over a 3-year period. Of these, 60 were radical nephrectomies for malignant disease, of which 50 tumors were stage T1 and 10 stage T2. Standard HAL nephrectomy was performed through a vertical midline or paramedian incision, and the specimen was sent for histologic examination and tumor staging. We retrospectively analyzed our charts to determine if HAL nephrectomy for T2 tumors was as advantageous as for T1 tumors. We collected data on patient age, ASA score, average tumor size, estimated blood loss, operative time, conversion rate, rate of complications, and length of hospital stay. Follow-up ranged from 4 to 26 months with a mean of 11 months. RESULTS: The mean size was 4.68 and 9.22 cm for stage T1 and T2 tumors, respectively. Intraoperatively, stage T2 tumors were associated with less blood loss than were T1 tumors (105 mL v 190 mL). Operative times were equivalent, at 190 and 185 minutes for stage T1 and T2, respectively. No open conversions were required in the T2 group v four (8.7%) in the T1 group. Three of these open conversions were seen in the first 25 HAL cases. No complications or conversions were seen in the stage T2 patients. Of note, the majority of the operations for stage T2 disease were performed after the learning curve had been surpassed. CONCLUSION: The HAL nephrectomy maintains the benefits associated with standard LN. Stage T1 and T2 tumors are equally amenable to HAL nephrectomy, enjoying the same perioperative advantages. The larger size of the higher-stage tumors does not appear to hinder intact organ removal via a 7-cm hand incision. For the novice laparoscopist, we recommend approaching smaller tumors first with HAL nephrectomy, as there is a learning curve. As surgical expertise with HAL nephrectomy increases, larger tumors (stage T2) can be removed safely and expeditiously with little blood loss and a low complication rate. In the short term, patients with stage T2 cancers appear to enjoy the same disease-free survival rate as those with tumors of lower stage. Longer-term follow-up is clearly needed; however, we anticipate the same excellent results as have been demonstrated by others performing conventional radical LN.     

How can we increase living related donor renal transplantations?

BACKGROUND: In Japan, living donor renal transplantation has gained momentum due to an increased number of patients with end-stage renal disease. Living donation not only provides better outcomes, but also the recipients usually need less medications, thereby increasing the quality of life and reducing the potential side effects of immunosuppression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For the past 25 years, our center had performed 140 open donor nephrectomy (OPNx) renal transplantations. Since July 2003, we changed our procurement operation to living hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALNx) in 49 cases. Our operative technique consisted of two 12-mm ports placed in the midaxillary line at the superior and inferior levels of the umbilicus. Next, a 5-cm incision was made in the midline periumbilicus and the hand port system fitted through a midline abdominal incision. RESULTS: In 49 cases, HALNx was completed successfully; no patient required conversion to laparotomy. The estimated blood loss was 33.0 +/- 43.4 g and no patient required blood transfusion. In comparison, in OPNx the blood loss was 426.5 +/- 247.6 g (P < .001). The mean operative times were 167.4 +/- 39.7 minutes for HALNx and 228.4 +/- 35.7 minutes for OPNx (P < .001). The postoperative hospital stays were 9.1 +/- 3.8 days for HALNx and 13.0 +/- 1.9 days for OPNx (P < .001). For 3 years prior to introduction of HALNx, we had performed only 10 living donor renal transplantations. Since the introduction of HALNx in 2003, the number of living donors has tripled during the following 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Herein we have reported that HALNx was superior in terms of less operative time and blood loss, postoperative pain and recovery, and shorter hospital stay. Overall donor patient satisfaction was also better in the HALNx group. HALNx is a safe procedure that makes kidney donation more appealing to potential live donors and has increased the living donor pool at our center.     

Minimal incision living donor nephrectomy compared to the hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND: There has been a surge of minimally invasive procedures for living donor nephrectomy. We compared our minimal incision living donor (MILD) nephrectomy to hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) living donor nephrectomy METHODS: We conducted a Medline search and compared our first 45 MILD nephrectomies to the data from the University of Michigan (UM), Tulane University (TU), and the University of Chicago (UC). RESULTS: The MILD incision was smaller than the cumulative incisions in the UM and UC groups (8.6, 11 and 10.4 cm, respectively). The operating times were similar in the UM and UC groups (209, 246, and 215 min, respectively). The UM and TU lengths of hospital stay (1.8 and 2.2 days) were shorter than those of the MILD and UC groups (2.5 and 2.8 days). CONCLUSIONS: MILD nephrectomy has results similar to those of HAL living donor nephrectomy. It allows the surgeon with a traditionally trained background to perform a safe, minimally invasive operation without laparoscopic technology.     

Postoperative Morphine Use and Hyperalgesia Are Reduced by Preoperative but Not Intraoperative Epidural Analgesia: Implications for Preemptive Analgesia and the Prevention of Central Sensitization

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the postoperative morphine-sparing effects and reduction in pain and secondary mechanical hyperalgesia after preincisional or postincisional epidural administration of a local anesthetic and an opioid compared with a sham epidural control.

Methods: Patients undergoing major gynecologic surgery by laparotomy were randomly assigned to three groups and studied in a double-blinded manner. Group 1 received epidural lidocaine and fentanyl before incision and epidural saline 40 min after incision. Group 2 received epidural saline before incision and epidural lidocaine and fentanyl 40 min after incision. Group 3 received a sham epidural control (with saline injected into a catheter taped to the back) before and 40 min after incision. All patients underwent surgery with general anesthesia.

Results: One hundred forty-one patients completed the study (group 1, n = 45; group 2, n = 49; group 3, n = 47). Cumulative patient-controlled analgesia morphine consumption at 48 h was significantly lower (P = 0.04) in group 1 (89.8 +/- 43.3 mg) than group 3 (112.5 +/- 71.5 mg) but not group 2 (95.4 +/- 60.2 mg), although the hourly rate of morphine consumption between 24 and 48 h after surgery was significantly lower (P < 0.0009) in group 1 (1.25 +/- 0.02 mg/h) than group 2 (1.41 +/- 0.02 mg/h). Twenty-four hours after surgery, the visual analog scale pain score on movement was significantly less intense (P = 0.005) in group 1 (4.9 +/- 2.2 cm) than group 3 (6.0 +/- 2.6 cm) but not group 2 (5.3 +/- 2.5 cm), and the von Frey pain threshold near the wound was significantly higher (P = 0.03) in group 1 (6.4 +/- 0.6 log mg) than in group 3 (6.1 +/- 0.8 log mg) but not group 2 (6.2 +/- 0.7 log mg).