Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Manual Specimen Retrieval Without a Pneumoperitoneum Preserving Device for Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy

2002; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 168; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/s0022-5347(05)64547-8

1527-3792

Arieh L. Shalhav, Tibério M. Siqueira, Thomas A. Gardner, Ryan F. Paterson, Larry H. Stevens,

Organ Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes

No AccessJournal of UrologyCLINICAL UROLOGY: ORIGINAL ARTICLES1 Sep 2002Manual Specimen Retrieval Without a Pneumoperitoneum Preserving Device for Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy Arieh L. Shalhav, Tibério M. Siqueira, Thomas A. Gardner, Ryan F. Paterson, and Larry H. Stevens Arieh L. ShalhavArieh L. Shalhav , Tibério M. SiqueiraTibério M. Siqueira , Thomas A. GardnerThomas A. Gardner , Ryan F. PatersonRyan F. Paterson , and Larry H. StevensLarry H. Stevens View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64547-8AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We present a novel method of kidney retrieval based on a modified Pfannenstiel incision and insertion of the assistant hand into the abdominal cavity without a device for pneumoperitoneum preservation. This maneuver is performed as the last step in pure laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Also, we assessed the effect of this technique on warm ischemia time compared with the standard laparoscopic bag retrieval technique. Materials and Methods: A total of 70 laparoscopic live donor nephrectomies were performed at our institutions between October 1998 and March 2001. The first 43 cases were completed using an EndoCatch bag device (Auto Suture, Norwalk, Connecticut) for specimen retrieval, while the last 27 were done using a novel manual retrieval technique through a modified Pfannenstiel incision. We retrospectively analyzed the results in regard to warm ischemia time and intraoperative complications related to the procedure. Results: A statistically significant difference was noted in the EndoCatch and manual retrieval groups in regard to warm ischemia time (p <0.001). There were 2 complications related to the EndoCatch device and none related to the manual technique. No differences were detected regarding recipient outcomes. Conclusions: Manual specimen retrieval after live donor nephrectomy allows shorter warm ischemia time, while saving the cost of an EndoCatch bag or pneumoperitoneum preserving device that would be used during hand assisted live donor nephrectomy. It was shown to be a safe method without increased donor morbidity. References 1 : Laparoscopic nephrectomy: initial case report. J Urol1991; 146: 278. Link, Google Scholar 2 : Laparoscopic retroperitoneoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology1996; 47: 311. Google Scholar 3 : Laparoscopic nephroureterectomy. A new standard for the surgical management of upper tract transitional cell cancer. Urol Clin North Am2000; 27: 761. Google Scholar 4 : Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris experience. J Urol2000; 163: 418. Link, Google Scholar 5 : Laparoscopic liver donor nephrectomy. Transplantation1995; 60: 1047. Google Scholar 6 Annual Report of the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network: Transplant Data, 1995–1998. Richmond: United Network for Organ Sharing, 1996 Google Scholar 7 : Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Urol Clin North Am2001; 28: 127. Google Scholar 8 : Increased rates of donation with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Ann Surg2000; 232: 392. Google Scholar 9 : Is laparoscopic donor nephrectomy the new criterion standard?. Arch Surg2000; 135: 943. Google Scholar 10 : Kidney graft loss after laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Transplant Proc2000; 32: 683. Google Scholar 11 : Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Transplant Proc2000; 32: 681. Google Scholar 12 : Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: the University of Maryland 3-year experience. J Urol2000; 164: 1494. Link, Google Scholar 13 : Hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Urology1998; 52: 885. Google Scholar 14 : Comparison clinical evaluation of hand-assist devices for hand-assisted laparoscopy. Tech Urol2001; 7: 57. Google Scholar 15 : Laparoscopic v laparoscopy-assisted donor nephrectomy in the porcine model. J Endourol1999; 13: 513. Google Scholar 16 : Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: comparable donor/recipient outcomes, costs, decreased convalescence as compared to open donor nephrectomy. Transplant Proc2001; 33: 1106. Google Scholar 17 : Renal transplantation: laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Urol Clin North Am2000; 27: 777. Google Scholar 18 : Why not Pfannenstiel’s incision?. Obstet Gynecol1973; 41: 303. Google Scholar 19 : Complications of laparoscopic surgery. Urology1993; 42: 2. Google Scholar 20 : Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Kidney Int2000; 57: 2175. Google Scholar 21 : Hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy: comparison to standard laparoscopic nephrectomy. J Urol1998; 160: 22. Link, Google Scholar From the Departments of Urology and Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine and Methodist Hospital of Indiana and Clarian Health Partners, Indianapolis, Indiana© 2002 by American Urological Association, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 168Issue 3September 2002Page: 941-944 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2002 by American Urological Association, Inc.Keywordsspecimen handlingliving donorsnephrectomylaparoscopykidneyMetricsAuthor Information Arieh L. Shalhav More articles by this author Tibério M. Siqueira More articles by this author Thomas A. Gardner More articles by this author Ryan F. Paterson More articles by this author Larry H. Stevens More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...