Is laparoscopic appendectomy going to be standard procedure for acute appendicitis; a 5-year single center experience with 1,788 patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether laparoscopic appendectomy can be the gold standard for acute appendicitis regarding the applicability and cost effectivity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included patients who were operated by laparoscopically for acute appendicitis between January 2008 and September 2012. Patients' sex, ages, hospitalization time, the type for closure of the appendiceal stump, complication rate, surgery time and other parameters were recorded. RESULTS: 1,788 patients with acute appendicitis on laparoscopic evaluation constituted the study population. Average age of the patient group was 30.1 ± 2.3 years old. Average hospitalization time was 1.2 ± 1.1 days. Metal clips were used in 1,100 (61.5%) patients, intracorporeal knotting was performed in the remaining. Total complication rate was 3.8%. CONCLUSION: By the using of metal clips and increased experience; laparoscopy may be gold standard for acute appendicitis.

Is a High Body Mass Index Still a Risk Factor for Complications of Donor Nephrectomy?

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The incidence of obesity is increasing all around the world and Turkey is no exception. In Turkey, 80.1% of all kidney transplants performed in 2013 were living donor kidney transplants. In this study we compare the early postoperative complications of living kidney donors with a body mass index (BMI) over 30 to those with BMIs under 30. PATIENTS AND METHOD: All donor nephrectomies performed at the Ege University School of Medicine Hospital between May 2013 and May 2014 were included in the study. Donors' demographics, preoperative BMI, operation time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and perioperative blood creatinine levels were analyzed. RESULTS: There were a total of 72 donors, 50 of whom had a BMI below 30 (group 1), whereas 22 had a BMI of 30 or higher (Group 2). The median age was 47 (±12.6) and 52.2 (±8.4) for Groups 1 and 2, respectively. The median BMI was 26.1 (±2.3) for Group 1 and 31.8 (±1.5) for Group 2. There was no significant difference in operation time (P = .980) between the 2 groups. There was no difference in the length of hospitalization with an average hospital stay of 3 days for both groups. No major complications were observed in either group. There was no difference in minor complication rates for both groups. CONCLUSION: High BMI donors can safely donate their kidney with no significant increase in complication rates at high-volume transplantation centers.

Comparison of Preemptive Kidney Transplantation With Nonpreemptive Kidney Transplantation in a Single Center: A Follow-up Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The effect of preemptive transplantation of kidneys from living donors on patient and allograft survival is controversial. In this study, we aimed to evaluate whether preemptive kidney transplantation performed without the development of patient dialysis-related complications has a favorable effect on patient and graft survival. PATIENTS AND METHOD: The study included 334 adult renal transplant recipients. Patients who underwent renal transplantation between January 2008 and December 2012 at a tertiary referral teaching hospital were followed, and outcomes were obtained by retrospective chart review. A total of 244 patients underwent dialysis before renal transplantation, whereas 90 patients underwent preemptive transplantation. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the 2 groups with regard to patients and graft survival rates (P > .05). Patient survival rates in preemptive and nonpreemptive groups were 98.9% and 96.3% in the first year, respectively (P = .199). Graft survival rates in preemptive and nonpreemptive groups were 96.7% and 93.0% in the first year, respectively (P = .163). Patient survival rates in preemptive and nonpreemptive groups were 98.9% and 95.7% in the third year, respectively (P = .155). Graft survival rates in preemptive and nonpreemptive groups were 93.5% and 88.5% in the third year, respectively (P = .138). There was a significant difference among years with regard to ratio of patients with preemptive transplantation (P = .009). The ratio was 17.5% in 2008, whereas it rose to 43.1% in 2012. CONCLUSION: Although preemptive kidney transplantation does not provide a significant patient and allograft survival advantage compared to nonpreemptive kidney transplantation, both therapeutic modalities provide good outcomes. Preemptive kidney transplantation has been an increasingly frequent renal replacement therapy option in recent years.

Comparison of Patients in Whom Double-J Stent Had Been Placed or Not Placed After Renal Transplantation in a Single Center: A Follow-up Study.

BACKGROUND: Double-J (DJ) stents play an important role in modern urology to prevent undesirable side effects after surgery. We aimed to investigate the relationship of DJ stents with the demographic characteristics, surgical complications, urinary tract infection (UTI), and hematuria in the patients who underwent renal transplantation (Tx). METHODS: Data of 354 patients who underwent renal Tx between 2008 and 2011 at Ege University were evaluated retrospectively; 331 patients were included in this study. The term DJ (-) represents patients in whom a DJ stent was not placed. "Primary DJ term" represents patients in whom the DJ stent was placed during the first Tx. "Secondary DJ term" represents the patients who had DJ after Tx for any complication. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-four (76.7%) patients were in the DJ (-) group, 52 (15.7%) were in the primary DJ group, and 25 (7.6%) were in the secondary DJ group. There were significant differences between the groups in terms of anastomosis type (P = .000), stay-in-hospital time (P = .000), surgical complication (P = .000), re-operation (P = .000), percutaneous nephrostomy (P = .000), UTI (P = .000), first-time UTI (P = .000), recurrent UTI (P = .000), positive hemoculture (P = .000), hematuria (P = .000), duration of dialysis before Tx (P = .000), live/deceased donor (P = .000), and delayed graft function (P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: Our choice is to use the DJ stent in selected high-risk patients and to keep the indications for DJ stent wider in deceased donor transplants by considering possible surgical complications. The use of the stent only in selected cases will decrease surgical complications due to stent placement.