The feasibility of solo-surgeon living donor nephrectomy: Initial experience using video-assisted minilaparotomy surgery

Yong Seung Lee, Hwang Gyun Jeon, Seung Ryeol Lee, Woo Ju Jeong, Seung Choul Yang, WoongKyu Han

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Today, many kinds of surgery are being conducted without human assistants. Living donor nephrectomy (LDN) using video-assisted minilaparotomy surgery (VAM) has been performed by solo-surgeon using Unitrac® (Aesculap Surgical Instrument, Germany). We examined the results from VAM-solo-surgeon living donor nephrectomy (SLDN) and conventional VAM-human-assisted living donor nephrectomy (HLDN). Methods: Between July 2007 and April 2008, 82 cases of VAM-LDN were performed by two surgeons. From these cases, we randomly assigned 35 cases to undergo solo-surgery (group I) and the other 47 cases to undergo surgery with one human assistant (group II). All VAM-LDN procedures were performed in the same manner. Only the roles of a first assistant were substituted by the Unitrac® in group I. We compared the perioperative and postoperative data, including operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay, between the two groups. We also investigated cases that developed complications. Results: There were no significant differences in the patient demographic data between the two groups (P > 0.05). The mean operative time was 201.9 ± 32.9 min in group I and 202.4 ± 48.3 min in group II (P = 0.954), whereas mean blood loss was 209.7 ± 167.3 ml in group I and 179.6 ± 87.8 ml in group II (P = 0.294). Postoperative hospital stay were 5.4 ± 1.1 days in group I and 5.5 ± 1.6 days in group II (P = 0.813). The incidence of perioperative complications was not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that VAM-SLDN can be performed safely, is economically beneficial, and is comparable to VAM-HLDN in terms of postoperative outcomes.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2755-2759
Number of pages5
JournalSurgical Endoscopy
Volume24
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Video-Assisted Surgery
Living Donors
Nephrectomy
Laparotomy
Operative Time
Length of Stay
Surgeons
Surgical Instruments
Germany
Demography

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery

Cite this

Lee, Yong Seung ; Jeon, Hwang Gyun ; Lee, Seung Ryeol ; Jeong, Woo Ju ; Yang, Seung Choul ; Han, WoongKyu. / The feasibility of solo-surgeon living donor nephrectomy : Initial experience using video-assisted minilaparotomy surgery. In: Surgical Endoscopy. 2010 ; Vol. 24, No. 11. pp. 2755-2759.
@article{5d53765f4aa84c6099384e6998be7011,
title = "The feasibility of solo-surgeon living donor nephrectomy: Initial experience using video-assisted minilaparotomy surgery",
abstract = "Background: Today, many kinds of surgery are being conducted without human assistants. Living donor nephrectomy (LDN) using video-assisted minilaparotomy surgery (VAM) has been performed by solo-surgeon using Unitrac{\circledR} (Aesculap Surgical Instrument, Germany). We examined the results from VAM-solo-surgeon living donor nephrectomy (SLDN) and conventional VAM-human-assisted living donor nephrectomy (HLDN). Methods: Between July 2007 and April 2008, 82 cases of VAM-LDN were performed by two surgeons. From these cases, we randomly assigned 35 cases to undergo solo-surgery (group I) and the other 47 cases to undergo surgery with one human assistant (group II). All VAM-LDN procedures were performed in the same manner. Only the roles of a first assistant were substituted by the Unitrac{\circledR} in group I. We compared the perioperative and postoperative data, including operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay, between the two groups. We also investigated cases that developed complications. Results: There were no significant differences in the patient demographic data between the two groups (P > 0.05). The mean operative time was 201.9 ± 32.9 min in group I and 202.4 ± 48.3 min in group II (P = 0.954), whereas mean blood loss was 209.7 ± 167.3 ml in group I and 179.6 ± 87.8 ml in group II (P = 0.294). Postoperative hospital stay were 5.4 ± 1.1 days in group I and 5.5 ± 1.6 days in group II (P = 0.813). The incidence of perioperative complications was not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that VAM-SLDN can be performed safely, is economically beneficial, and is comparable to VAM-HLDN in terms of postoperative outcomes.",
author = "Lee, {Yong Seung} and Jeon, {Hwang Gyun} and Lee, {Seung Ryeol} and Jeong, {Woo Ju} and Yang, {Seung Choul} and WoongKyu Han",
year = "2010",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00464-010-1040-z",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "2755--2759",
journal = "Surgical Endoscopy",
issn = "0930-2794",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "11",

}

The feasibility of solo-surgeon living donor nephrectomy : Initial experience using video-assisted minilaparotomy surgery. / Lee, Yong Seung; Jeon, Hwang Gyun; Lee, Seung Ryeol; Jeong, Woo Ju; Yang, Seung Choul; Han, WoongKyu.

In: Surgical Endoscopy, Vol. 24, No. 11, 01.01.2010, p. 2755-2759.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The feasibility of solo-surgeon living donor nephrectomy

T2 - Initial experience using video-assisted minilaparotomy surgery

AU - Lee, Yong Seung

AU - Jeon, Hwang Gyun

AU - Lee, Seung Ryeol

AU - Jeong, Woo Ju

AU - Yang, Seung Choul

AU - Han, WoongKyu

PY - 2010/1/1

Y1 - 2010/1/1

N2 - Background: Today, many kinds of surgery are being conducted without human assistants. Living donor nephrectomy (LDN) using video-assisted minilaparotomy surgery (VAM) has been performed by solo-surgeon using Unitrac® (Aesculap Surgical Instrument, Germany). We examined the results from VAM-solo-surgeon living donor nephrectomy (SLDN) and conventional VAM-human-assisted living donor nephrectomy (HLDN). Methods: Between July 2007 and April 2008, 82 cases of VAM-LDN were performed by two surgeons. From these cases, we randomly assigned 35 cases to undergo solo-surgery (group I) and the other 47 cases to undergo surgery with one human assistant (group II). All VAM-LDN procedures were performed in the same manner. Only the roles of a first assistant were substituted by the Unitrac® in group I. We compared the perioperative and postoperative data, including operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay, between the two groups. We also investigated cases that developed complications. Results: There were no significant differences in the patient demographic data between the two groups (P > 0.05). The mean operative time was 201.9 ± 32.9 min in group I and 202.4 ± 48.3 min in group II (P = 0.954), whereas mean blood loss was 209.7 ± 167.3 ml in group I and 179.6 ± 87.8 ml in group II (P = 0.294). Postoperative hospital stay were 5.4 ± 1.1 days in group I and 5.5 ± 1.6 days in group II (P = 0.813). The incidence of perioperative complications was not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that VAM-SLDN can be performed safely, is economically beneficial, and is comparable to VAM-HLDN in terms of postoperative outcomes.

AB - Background: Today, many kinds of surgery are being conducted without human assistants. Living donor nephrectomy (LDN) using video-assisted minilaparotomy surgery (VAM) has been performed by solo-surgeon using Unitrac® (Aesculap Surgical Instrument, Germany). We examined the results from VAM-solo-surgeon living donor nephrectomy (SLDN) and conventional VAM-human-assisted living donor nephrectomy (HLDN). Methods: Between July 2007 and April 2008, 82 cases of VAM-LDN were performed by two surgeons. From these cases, we randomly assigned 35 cases to undergo solo-surgery (group I) and the other 47 cases to undergo surgery with one human assistant (group II). All VAM-LDN procedures were performed in the same manner. Only the roles of a first assistant were substituted by the Unitrac® in group I. We compared the perioperative and postoperative data, including operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay, between the two groups. We also investigated cases that developed complications. Results: There were no significant differences in the patient demographic data between the two groups (P > 0.05). The mean operative time was 201.9 ± 32.9 min in group I and 202.4 ± 48.3 min in group II (P = 0.954), whereas mean blood loss was 209.7 ± 167.3 ml in group I and 179.6 ± 87.8 ml in group II (P = 0.294). Postoperative hospital stay were 5.4 ± 1.1 days in group I and 5.5 ± 1.6 days in group II (P = 0.813). The incidence of perioperative complications was not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that VAM-SLDN can be performed safely, is economically beneficial, and is comparable to VAM-HLDN in terms of postoperative outcomes.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78650187070&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78650187070&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00464-010-1040-z

DO - 10.1007/s00464-010-1040-z

M3 - Article

C2 - 20383533

AN - SCOPUS:78650187070

VL - 24

SP - 2755

EP - 2759

JO - Surgical Endoscopy

JF - Surgical Endoscopy

SN - 0930-2794

IS - 11

ER -