Three-dimensional laparoscopy for living-donor nephrectomy with vaginal extraction: The first case

Gamé, X.; Binhazzaa, M.; Soulié, M.; Kamar, Nassim; Sallusto, Fédérico

doi:10.1016/j.ijscr.2017.03.025

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All types of minimally invasive nephrectomy in living donors have undeniable advantages over the open technique, but they have not shown significant differences in comparison with each other [ 6 ]. In the last few years, data have been published on the usage of three-dimensional (3D) imaging for living donor nephrectomy [ 7 - 10 ]. The purpose of this report was to present the results of the initial experiences of 3D hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (3D-HALDN) at a single transplant center and compare them with traditional two-dimensional hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (2D-HALDN) with manual assistance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two- and three-dimensional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparative study of a single-center experience

Rysmakhanov

Yelemessov

Mussin

et al. 2022

Korean J Transplant

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This is the first report on three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic donor nephrectomy performed in the Central Asian region and Commonwealth of Independent States countries. This study presents the results of our initial experiences of 3D hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (3D-HALDN) in comparison with the outcomes of two-dimensional hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (2D-HALDN) at a single center. Methods From 2015 to 2019, 19 3D-HALDN and 19 2D-HALDN procedures were performed at the same center by two surgeons. All 38 procedures used identical techniques. Between-group differences were considered statistically significant at P<0.05. Results The baseline characteristics in both groups were statistically comparable (P>0.05). All donors underwent left nephrectomy. Donors who underwent 3D-HALDN had better outcomes than those who underwent 2D-HALDN, as shown by a shorter warm ischemic time (P<0.05), a shorter operative time (P<0.05), and less blood loss (P<0.05). There were no conversions or major complications (according to the Clavien-Dindo classification) in either group. The average drainage duration and postoperative hospitalization were significantly shorter in the 3D-HALDN group (P<0.05). The between-group differences in the mean postoperative creatinine level and glomerular filtration rate were not significant. Conclusions The 3D-HALDN approach is more beneficial than traditional 2D-HALDN by providing a shorter warm ischemic time, less blood loss, and shorter durations of drainage and postoperative hospitalization. Postoperative complications and the functional condition of the kidney in donors in the early and late postoperative periods did not depend on the type of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two- and three-dimensional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparative study of a single-center experience

Rysmakhanov

Yelemessov

Mussin

et al. 2022

Korean J Transplant

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Does three-dimensional surgery affect recurrence patterns in patients with gastric cancer after laparoscopic R0 gastrectomy? Results from a 3-year follow-up phase III trial

Lü

Zheng

et al. 2020

Surg Endosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laparoscopy for living donor left nephrectomy: Comparison of three‐dimensional and two‐dimensional vision

Prudhomme

Roumiguié

Benoit

et al. 2019

Clinical Transplantation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main objective of this preliminary study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of 3‐D laparoscopic living donor left nephrectomy (LDLN). The secondary objective was to compare intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between 3‐D and 2‐D laparoscopic LDLN. All patients who underwent a laparoscopic LDLN from January 2015 to April 2018 in a university center were included. All surgeries were performed by three experienced surgeons. Seventy three patients were included the following: 16 underwent a 3‐D laparoscopic LDLN (3‐D group), and 57 underwent a 2‐D laparoscopic LDLN (2‐D group). Operative time and warm ischemia time (WIT) were significantly lower in the 3‐D group (operative time: 80.9 ± 10.2 vs 114.1 ± 32.3 minutes in the 3‐D and 2‐D groups, P = .0002) (WIT: 1.7 ± 0.6 vs 2.3 ± 0.9 minutes in the 3‐D and 2‐D groups, P = .02). No conversion to open surgery occurred in both groups. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the 3‐D group. No major postoperative complications (Clavien ≥ III) occurred. One‐year postoperative GFR was similar to 3‐D and 2‐D groups. Our preliminary study demonstrates that 3‐D laparoscopic LDLN is a feasible and safe surgical procedure. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were similar in both 2‐D and 3‐D vision systems, but 3‐D vision systems allow reduction in WIT and operative time.

show abstract

Three-dimensional laparoscopy for living-donor nephrectomy with vaginal extraction: The first case

Cited by 4 publications

References 6 publications

Two- and three-dimensional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparative study of a single-center experience

Two- and three-dimensional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparative study of a single-center experience

Does three-dimensional surgery affect recurrence patterns in patients with gastric cancer after laparoscopic R0 gastrectomy? Results from a 3-year follow-up phase III trial

Laparoscopy for living donor left nephrectomy: Comparison of three‐dimensional and two‐dimensional vision

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About