Left or right kidney in hand-assisted donor nephrectomy? A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing discussion in living renal transplantation whether the right or the left donor nephrectomy is to be preferred if both kidneys are equal, due to the lack of prospective studies. METHODS: A prospective single-center randomized trial was conducted from April 2002 to September 2006, in which 60 eligible consecutive donors were randomized to either left-sided or right-sided hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). Primary endpoint was operation time. Secondary endpoints were donor morbidity, warm ischemia time, delayed graft function, urological complications, quality of life, and graft survival. RESULTS: Median operating time for left-sided HALDN (180 min) was significantly longer compared with right-sided HALDN (150 min; P=0.021). There were no conversions in both groups. There were no major intra- or postoperative complications. One-year graft survival rate was 96% in the left group versus 93% in the right group (P=0.625, log rank). CONCLUSIONS: Operating time of HALDN of the right kidney is significantly shorter than HALDN of the left kidney. No differences were detected in complication rates and graft survival between left and right-sided donor nephrectomy.

Effect of surgery for chronic pancreatitis on pancreatic function: pancreatico-jejunostomy and duodenum-preserving resection of the head of the pancreas.

BACKGROUND: Resection and drainage procedures are performed for chronic pancreatitis. After resection, pancreatic function deteriorates; however, little is known about the effect of drainage procedures. METHODS: Pancreatic function was evaluated prospectively before and after surgery in 27 patients with duodenum-preserving resection of the head of the pancreas (DPRHP), and in 12 patients with pancreatico-jejunostomy (P-JS); 18 patients with chronic pancreatitis served as controls. Results of the 2 groups were not compared because of differences in patient characteristics and indications for surgery. Endpoints were exocrine function (fecal fat excretion, urinary PABA recovery), endocrine function (oral glucose tolerance test, serum C-peptide concentrations), and pancreatic polypeptide secretion. RESULTS: Groups were not different with respect to age and duration of symptoms. Median urinary PABA recovery was not altered significantly after surgery: DPRHP, from 40% to 31%; P-JS, from 52% to 44%; and controls, from 43% to 48%. Median fecal fat also did not change significantly: DPRHP, from 6 to 12 g/24 h; P-JS, from 9 to 5 g/24 h; and controls, from 6 to 7 g/24 h. Although the integrated blood glucose value did not change after DPRHP, the integrated serum C-peptide value decreased after DPRHP (P<.02). After P-JS, the integrated blood glucose value decreased (P<.02), but there was no change in integrated serum C-peptide secretion. Neither integrated blood glucose nor C peptide values were affected in controls. Insulin dependency increased (22% to 33%) after DPRHP. Pancreatic polypeptide secretion decreased only after DPRHP (P=.003). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery for chronic pancreatitis does not influence exocrine pancreatic function after either a drainage (P-JS) or a resection procedure (DPRHP). Clinical endocrine function is not affected after DPRHP but improves after P-JS.

Laparoscopic-assisted versus open ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare laparoscopic-assisted and open ileocolic resection for primary Crohn's disease in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Sixty patients were randomized for laparoscopic-assisted or open surgery. Primary outcome parameter was postoperative quality of life (QoL) during 3 months of follow-up, measured by SF-36 and GIQLI questionnaire. Secondary parameters were operating time, morbidity, hospital stay, postoperative morphine requirement, pain, and costs. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were not different. Conversion rate was 10% (n=3). Median operating time was longer in laparoscopic compared with open surgery (115 versus 90 minutes; P<0.003). Hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (5 versus 7 days; P=0.008). The number of patients with postoperative morbidity within the first 30 days differed between the laparoscopic and open group (10% versus 33%; P=0.028). There was no statistically significant difference in QoL between the groups during follow-up. Significant time effects were found on all scales of the SF-36 (P<0.001) and the GIQLI score (P<0.001). QoL declined in the first week, returned to baseline levels after 2 weeks, and was improved 4 weeks and 3 months after surgery. Median overall costs during the 3 months follow-up were significantly different: euro6412 for laparoscopic and euro8196 for open surgery (P=0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Although QoL measured by SF-36 and GIQLI questionnaires was not different for laparoscopic-assisted compared with the open ileocolic resection, morbidity, hospital stay, and costs were significantly lower.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate postoperative recovery after hand-assisted laparoscopic or open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Sixty patients were randomized for hand-assisted laparoscopic (n = 30) or open surgery (n = 30). Primary outcome parameter was postoperative recovery in the 3 months after surgery, measured by quality of life questionnaires (SF-36 and GIQLI). Secondary parameters were postoperative morphine requirement and surgical parameters, viz. operating time, morbidity, hospital stay, and costs. RESULTS: There was no difference between the 2 procedures in quality of life assessment in the 3 months after surgery. There was a significant decline in quality of life on all scales of the SF-36 (P < 0.001) and total GIQLI score (P < 0.001) in the first 2 weeks in both groups (no significant difference between the groups). Quality of life returned to baseline levels after 4 weeks. Operating times were longer in the laparoscopic group compared with the open group (210 and 133 minutes, respectively; P < 0.001). No significant differences were found in morphine requirement. Neither morbidity nor postoperative hospital stay differed between the laparoscopic and open group (20% versus 17%, in 10 versus 11 days, respectively). Median overall costs were 16.728 for the hand-assisted laparoscopic procedure and 13.406 for the open procedure (P = 0.095). CONCLUSIONS: Recovery measured using quality of life questionnaires is comparable for hand-assisted laparoscopic or open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis. The laparoscopic approach is as safe, but more costly than the open procedure.