4.0 Article

Evaluation of the Learning Curve of Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

Journal

ANNALS OF TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 23, Issue -, Pages 546-553

Publisher

INT SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, INC
DOI: 10.12659/AOT.909397

Keywords

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopy; Kidney Transplantation; Learning Curve; Warm Ischemia

Funding

  1. Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI)
  2. Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [HI17C1314]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: In this study, we analyzed the learning curve of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). Material/Methods: The first 198 consecutive donors (110 cases by expert surgeon and 88 cases by newbie surgeon) operated on using HALDN were included in this study. The primary outcome measures were warm ischemic time (WIT), total operation time and estimated blood loss (EBL). The secondary outcome measures included length of hospital stay (LOS), graft outcome, and surgery-related complications. We used the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method to generate learning curves. Results: Except for WIT, all operative and convalescence parameters of donors and graft outcomes were similar for the 2 groups, including the total operation time (174.13 minutes vs. 171.75 minutes, P=0.140), EBL (108.27 cc vs. 116.82 cc, P=0.494), LOS (4.80 days vs. 4.92 days, P=0.144), and overall rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications (P>0.05). A significant difference was observed in WIT between the 2 groups (140.59 sec vs. 106.85 sec, P=0.027). Upon visual assessment of the CUSUM plots, a downward inflexion point for decreasing WIT was observed in 4 cases, total operation time in 12 cases, and EBL in 15 cases. Conclusions: HALDN has a relatively short learning curve and similar results may be expected from newbie urologists who are trained in minimally invasive surgery fellowship.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available