Rhabdomyolysis due to trauma and burns is an important cause of acute renal failure (ARF) secondary to myoglobinuria. To prevent morbidity and mortality from ARF due to rhabdomyolysis, early detection of ARF by monitoring the biochemical parameters such as serum creatinine, serum creatine kinase (CK), and urinary myoglobin (UM) can be helpful. The aims of the study were (1) to detect ARF due to rhabdomyolysis using serum creatinine, serum CK, and UM in trauma and electrical burn patients (2) to compare utility of these parameters in early prediction of ARF in patients of rhabdomyolysis. A total of 50 patients with trauma and electrical burns were included in the study. Serum creatinine, serum CK, and UM measurements were done at the time of admission and after 48 h. Diagnosis of ARF was made in the patients by Rifle's criteria. The presence of significant elevation of creatinine, serum CK, and UM at the time of admission and after 48 h was compared in patients developing ARF by Fisher's exact test. Fifteen of the 50 patients developed ARF as per the defined criteria. Of these, 9 patients (60%) had raised level of serum creatinine above 1.4 mg% at admission and 14 patients (93.33%) had CK level >1250 U/L at admission, whereas UM was positive in 6 (40%) patients. Serum creatinine was significantly raised in all of the 15 ARF patients (100%) after 48 h of admission and serum CK was raised in 14 of the 15 ARF patients (93.33%). UM was negative in all the patients after 48 h of admission. Statistical analysis showed that rise in serum CK on admission was significantly increased in patients developing ARF as compared with serum creatinine and UM (P<0.0001). On admission, CK is a better predictor of ARF due to rhabdomyolysis than creatinine and UM. Initial creatinine is a better predictor of ARF due to rhabdomyolysis than UM. UM assay is not a good investigation for early prediction of ARF in rhabdomyolysis.

Introduction: Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN) offers many advantages compared to open living donor nephrectomy. However, the perceived difficulty in learning LLDN has slowed its wider implementation. Herein, we describe the evolution of LLDN at a single center, emphasizing the approach and technical modifications and its impact on outcome. Methods: The series included a 2½-year period and three different surgeons. We started with two-stage plan for establishing LLDN at the institute (introduction and consolidation). Data of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy performed at the institution were prospectively evaluated regarding donor and recipient outcome. Results: From December 2016 to April 2019, 221 donors underwent LLDN. Three donors required conversion to open surgery. The mean operation time was 96.4 (62–158) min and the mean warm ischemia time was 186 (149–423) s. The complications were observed in 11.6% of donors from LLDN group and all complications were Class I and Class II only (Clavien–Dindo classification). No Class III and Class IV complications occurred. In the present study, there was some learning curve effect observed only in operative time (OT) with longer OT in initial cases. However, the overall operative complications were minimal, showing that this learning curve had no deleterious effects on donor safety. Conclusion: The present study demonstrates that with proper planning, team approach, and a few technical modifications, the transition from open to LLDN could be safe and effective.

No abstract