- Email: [email protected]
Re: Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy vs Standard Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Study
Urological Survey 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
Laparoscopy/New Technology Re: Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy vs Standard Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Study A. S. Bhattu, A. Ganpule, R. B. Sabnis, V. Murali, S. Mishra and M. Desai Department of Urology, Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital, Nadiad, India J Endourol 2015; 29: 1334e1340. doi: 10.1089/end.2015.0213
Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26414847 Editorial Comment: Few randomized prospective surgical studies exist in urology. This is the first series to explore if there any advantages to a robotic approach to kidney donor nephrectomy. The authors randomized 45 patients to robotic or laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (1:2 ratio) to be performed by 2 surgeons experienced with both techniques. To my surprise, despite the need for an additional trocar, the robotic group reported less pain in the first 2 days postoperatively, used fewer analgesics and had a shorter mean hospital stay by 1 day. A longer right arterial graft length (approximately 3 mm) could be achieved with the robotic approach but not on the left side. The robotic approach was associated with longer ischemia times. There were no differences in complications, and the recipient estimated glomerular filtration rate was similar at 9 months after transplantation. It is unclear whether the measured technical and morbidity differences are significant enough clinically to justify the additional cost of robotic surgery. Jeffrey A. Cadeddu, MD
0022-5347/16/1961-0001/0 THE JOURNAL OF UROLOGY® Ó 2016 by AMERICAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION EDUCATION
AND
RESEARCH, INC.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.03.157 Vol. 196, 1, July 2016 Printed in U.S.A.
www.jurology.com Dochead: Urological Survey
LIT 5.4.0 DTD JURO13618_proof 2 April 2016 8:56 pm EO:
j
1
37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
Laparoscopy/New Technology Re: Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy vs Standard Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Study A. S. Bhattu, A. Ganpule, R. B. Sabnis, V. Murali, S. Mishra and M. Desai Department of Urology, Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital, Nadiad, India J Endourol 2015; 29: 1334e1340. doi: 10.1089/end.2015.0213
Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26414847 Editorial Comment: Few randomized prospective surgical studies exist in urology. This is the first series to explore if there any advantages to a robotic approach to kidney donor nephrectomy. The authors randomized 45 patients to robotic or laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (1:2 ratio) to be performed by 2 surgeons experienced with both techniques. To my surprise, despite the need for an additional trocar, the robotic group reported less pain in the first 2 days postoperatively, used fewer analgesics and had a shorter mean hospital stay by 1 day. A longer right arterial graft length (approximately 3 mm) could be achieved with the robotic approach but not on the left side. The robotic approach was associated with longer ischemia times. There were no differences in complications, and the recipient estimated glomerular filtration rate was similar at 9 months after transplantation. It is unclear whether the measured technical and morbidity differences are significant enough clinically to justify the additional cost of robotic surgery. Jeffrey A. Cadeddu, MD
0022-5347/16/1961-0001/0 THE JOURNAL OF UROLOGY® Ó 2016 by AMERICAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION EDUCATION
AND
RESEARCH, INC.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.03.157 Vol. 196, 1, July 2016 Printed in U.S.A.
www.jurology.com Dochead: Urological Survey
LIT 5.4.0 DTD JURO13618_proof 2 April 2016 8:56 pm EO:
j
1