Choosing the larger kidney on CT volumetry: a study on the early post-donation kidney function of living donors.

BACKGROUND: Selecting the smaller kidney for donation has been advocated if there is a size difference of > 10% between the 2 kidneys but has never been prospectively evaluated. With increase in donor nephrectomies, it is important to evaluate this to minimize loss of renal function to donors. METHODS: 75 consecutive donor nephrectomy patients were included in our longitudinal study. The Split Renal Volume (SRV) of bilateral kidneys were measured using contrasted computer tomography scans and patients segregated into 2 groups depending on donated kidney having more (Group 1) or less than (Group 2) 52.5% of SRV. RESULTS: Patients in Group 1 (n = 19) and 2 (n = 56) were of similar age (43.8 vs. 48.3), BMI (22.4 vs. 25.2), sex (57.9 vs. 55.4% women), respectively. Although total kidney volumes were similar in both groups, Group 1 had significantly smaller right kidney volumes (120.4 ± 24.9 vs. 142.7 ± 28.4 mls, p = 0.003). EGFR pre-operatively (116.3 ± 20.8 vs. 106.3 ± 23.8 mL/min/1.73 m2) and at 6-months (65.7 ± 13.3 vs. 66.9 ± 15.5 mL/min/1.73 m2) were not different between groups. However, patients in Group 1 had significantly greater absolute (50.6 ± 14.9 vs. 39.5 ± 14.7 mL/min/1.73 m2) and relative decline (43.0 ± 8.6 vs. 36.3 ± 10.6%) in eGFR at 6 months (p = 0.06, 0.009). CONCLUSION: With a SRV difference of 5% between the 2 sides, removal of the larger kidney for living kidney donation resulted in greater early decline of renal function than kidney donors whose larger or equivalent kidney is preserved.

Tips and Tricks to Improve Ergonomics, Efficacy, Versatility, and Overcome Limitations of Micro Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.

Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has evolved over the decades from Standard to Mini to Ultramini PCNL to Micro-perc, with miniaturisation being the dominant theme and supine approach gaining momentum world over. Aim: In literature, miniaturised PCNL with microperc needle access system has raised concerns of intrarenal pressure and has some limitations with its success for larger stones. Our tips and tricks explain how to overcome these pitfalls by utilising the full construct of the needle system to its maximum potential. These will in turn help make the procedure versatile, precise, ergonomical, and enhance a surgeon's experience with improved outcomes for patients especially in large renal stones. Materials and Methods: We describe the limitations of microperc needle access as stated in literature and proposals by the co-authors using microperc for miniaturised access on how to overcome the same. Results: A simplified table describing the limitations and tips and tricks on overcoming these is provided for quick reference. Conclusion: As Technological advancements and techniques for miniaturised access in urolithiasis improve, we believe our suggestions will help surgeons overcome the quoted limitations of microperc needle access for miniaturised PCNL, making this a versatile, safe and efficacious technique even in large and complex stones. A multi centre trial will be the best way to validate the suggestions proposed in this article.

Validation of laparoscopy and flexible ureteroscopy tasks in inanimate simulation training models at a large-scale conference setting.

OBJECTIVE: Simulation based training with training models is being increasingly used as a tool to help trainees mount the learning curve. However, validation studies of surgical simulators are often limited by small numbers. We aim to evaluate the feasibility of validating simulation-training tasks in laparoscopy and flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) rapidly at a large-scale conference setting for residents. METHODS: Seventy-six urology residents from various Asian countries were assessed on their laparoscopic and FURS skills during the 14th Urological Association of Asia Congress 2016. Residents performed the peg transfer task from the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) and completed inspection of calyces and stone retrieval using a flexible ureteroscope in an endourological model. Each participant's experience (no experience, 1-30 or >30 procedures) in laparoscopy, rigid ureteroscopy (RURS) and FURS was self-reported. RESULTS: Median time taken to complete the laparoscopic task decreased with increasing laparoscopic experience (209 s vs. 177 s vs. 145 s, p=0.008) whereas median time taken to complete the FURS tasks reduced with increasing FURS experience (405 s vs. 250 s vs. 163 s, p=0.003) but not with RURS experience (400.5 s vs. 397 s vs. 331 s, p=0.143), demonstrating construct validity. Positive educational impact of both tasks was high, with mean ratings of 4.16/5 and 4.10/5 respectively, demonstrating face validity. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates construct and face validities of laparoscopy and FURS simulation tasks among residents at a conference setting. Validation studies at a conference setting can be an effective avenue for evaluating simulation models and curriculum in the future.