Amr Mohammed Dakhakhni
Asst. Professor
Transperitoneal laparoscopic simple nephrectomy for giant hydronephrosis: Tips and tricks to make it easier
• 2024
Publication Information
Authors
Ahmed Issam Ali1 , Aly M Abdel-Karim2,
Mostafa M Abdelghani1, Amr Eldakhakhny3, Ahmed M Fawzy1,
Ali Hassan1, Mahmoud F Rohiem4 and Ehab M Galal1
Keywords
Not Available
Journal
Not Available
Publisher
Not Available
Volume
Not Available
Issue
Not Available
Pages
Not Available
publication.type
Local
Paper Link
Not Available
Supplementary Materials
Not Available
Abstract
Purpose: We report our experience with transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy (LN) for giant hydronephrosis
(GH) and compare the outcome data with open nephrectomy (ON).
Patients and methods: The retrospective data of 88 patients (52 males and 36 females) who underwent LN or ON for
treatment of GH in the period between October 2015 and December 2019 were investigated. LN was performed in 38
patients, while 50 patients underwent ON. We compared the two groups for success, operative time, and intraoperative
and postoperative complications.
Results: The mean age of the patients in the LN group was 45.8 ± 11.4 years, and it was 44.7 ± 10.8 years in the ON
group. The mean operative time in the LN group was statistically significantly longer when compared with the ON
group195 ± 18 min versus 127 ± 22 min (p = 0.01).The estimated blood loss was significantly greater in the ON group
(p = 0.01). However, no patients required blood transfusions in either group. The visual analog pain (VAP) scores were
significantly higher on both day 1 and day 2 in the ON group 3.6 ± 0.9 and 2 ± 0.7 versus 2.7 ± 0.6 and 1.4 ± 0.5 in LN
group, (p = 0.01).
Conclusion: LN for GH is feasible, safe, and efficacious. Compared to open surgery, the laparoscopic approach resulted
in significantly shorter hospital stays, decreased morbidity, and quicker recovery. Some tips and tricks could help to do
it in an easier way and reduce the operative time.
(GH) and compare the outcome data with open nephrectomy (ON).
Patients and methods: The retrospective data of 88 patients (52 males and 36 females) who underwent LN or ON for
treatment of GH in the period between October 2015 and December 2019 were investigated. LN was performed in 38
patients, while 50 patients underwent ON. We compared the two groups for success, operative time, and intraoperative
and postoperative complications.
Results: The mean age of the patients in the LN group was 45.8 ± 11.4 years, and it was 44.7 ± 10.8 years in the ON
group. The mean operative time in the LN group was statistically significantly longer when compared with the ON
group195 ± 18 min versus 127 ± 22 min (p = 0.01).The estimated blood loss was significantly greater in the ON group
(p = 0.01). However, no patients required blood transfusions in either group. The visual analog pain (VAP) scores were
significantly higher on both day 1 and day 2 in the ON group 3.6 ± 0.9 and 2 ± 0.7 versus 2.7 ± 0.6 and 1.4 ± 0.5 in LN
group, (p = 0.01).
Conclusion: LN for GH is feasible, safe, and efficacious. Compared to open surgery, the laparoscopic approach resulted
in significantly shorter hospital stays, decreased morbidity, and quicker recovery. Some tips and tricks could help to do
it in an easier way and reduce the operative time.