FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2022199411> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2022199411 endingPage "1390" @default.
• W2022199411 startingPage "1386" @default.
• W2022199411 abstract "No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 Oct 2011Comparison of Complications of Laparoscopic Versus Laparoendoscopic Single Site Donor Nephrectomy Using the Modified Clavien Grading System Ranjith Ramasamy, Cheguevara Afaneh, Matthew Katz, Xueying Chen, Meredith J. Aull, David B. Leeser, Sandip Kapur, and Joseph J. Del Pizzo Ranjith RamasamyRanjith Ramasamy Department of Urology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York More articles by this author , Cheguevara AfanehCheguevara Afaneh Department of Surgery/Transplantation Surgery, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York More articles by this author , Matthew KatzMatthew Katz Department of Urology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York More articles by this author , Xueying ChenXueying Chen Department of Urology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York More articles by this author , Meredith J. AullMeredith J. Aull Department of Surgery/Transplantation Surgery, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York More articles by this author , David B. LeeserDavid B. Leeser Department of Surgery/Transplantation Surgery, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York More articles by this author , Sandip KapurSandip Kapur Department of Surgery/Transplantation Surgery, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York More articles by this author , and Joseph J. Del PizzoJoseph J. Del Pizzo Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York Financial interest and/or other relationship with Optum Health. More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.05.053AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We compared postoperative complications of laparoendoscopic single site and standard laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy using a standardized complication reporting system. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the records of consecutive patients who underwent a total of 663 laparoscopic living donor nephrectomies and 101 laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomies. All data were recorded retrospectively. The 30-day complication rate was compiled and graded using the modified Clavien complication scale. Multivariate binary logistic regression was used to determine independent predictors of complications. Results: Baseline demographics were comparable between the groups. Compared to those with laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy patients who underwent laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomy had a shorter hospital stay and less estimated blood loss but longer operative time (p <0.05) as well as higher oral but lower intravenous in hospital analgesic requirements (p <0.05). Mean warm ischemia time was marginally lower in the laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomy group (3.9 vs 4 minutes, p = 0.03). At 30 days there was no difference in the overall complication rate between the laparoscopic living and laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomy groups (7.1% vs 7.9%, p >0.05). There were 8 major complications (grade 3 to 5) in the laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy group but only 1 in the laparoendoscopic single site group. Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis revealed that estimated blood loss was a predictor of fewer complications at 30 days. Conclusions: With appropriate patient selection and operative experience laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomy may be a safe procedure associated with postoperative outcomes similar to those of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy as well as low morbidity. Using a standardized complication system can aid in counseling potential donors in the future. References 1 : Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation1995; 60: 1047. Medline, Google Scholar 2 : The role of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in renal transplantation. Am Surg2010; 76: 349. Google Scholar 3 : Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a step forward in kidney transplantation?. JSLS2003; 7: 197. Google Scholar 4 : Consensus statement of the consortium for laparoendoscopic single-site surgery. Surg Endosc2010; 24: 762. Google Scholar 5 : Transumbilical single-port surgery: evolution and current status. Eur Urol2008; 54: 1020. Google Scholar 6 : Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: initial hundred patients. Urology2009; 74: 805. Google Scholar 7 : Laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy: a single-center experience. Urology2009; 74: 1238. Google Scholar 8 : Experience with 750 consecutive laparoscopic donor nephrectomies—is it time to use a standardized classification of complications?. J Urol2010; 183: 1941. Link, Google Scholar 9 : Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg2004; 240: 205. Google Scholar 10 : Short- and long-term complications of open radical prostatectomy according to the Clavien classification system. BJU Int2009; 103: 336. Google Scholar 11 : Comprehensive standardized report of complications of retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol2010; 57: 371. Google Scholar 12 : Analysis of early complications of robotic-assisted radical cystectomy using a standardized reporting system. Urology2011; 77: 357. Google Scholar 13 : Complications of 2,775 urological laparoscopic procedures: 1993 to 2005. J Urol2007; 177: 580. Link, Google Scholar 14 : Living donor kidney transplantation with multiple renal arteries in the laparoscopic era. Urology2011; 77: 1116. Google Scholar 15 : Laparo-endoscopic single site (LESS) versus standard laparoscopic left donor nephrectomy: matched-pair comparison. Eur Urol2010; 57: 95. Google Scholar 16 : Outcomes of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy without intraoperative systemic heparinization. J Urol2010; 183: 2282. Link, Google Scholar 17 : Single port transumbilical (E-NOTES) donor nephrectomy. J Urol2008; 180: 637. Link, Google Scholar 18 : Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy. Br J Surg2010; 97: 21. Google Scholar 19 : Laparoendoscopic single site live donor nephrectomy: initial experience. J Urol2010; 184: 2049. Link, Google Scholar 20 : Randomized trial of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with and without hand assistance. J Endourol2006; 20: 717. Google Scholar 21 : Donor nephrectomy: A comparison of techniques and results of open, hand assisted and full laparoscopic nephrectomy. J Urol2004; 171: 40. Link, Google Scholar 22 : Laparoendoscopic single-site Pfannenstiel versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. J Endourol2010; 24: 429. Google Scholar 23 : Current status and future perspectives in laparoendoscopic single-site and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic urological surgery. Int J Urol2010; 17: 410. Google Scholar 24 : Standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy versus laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy: a randomized comparative study. J Endourol2011; 25: 365. Google Scholar © 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byAutorino R, Kaouk J, Yakoubi R, Rha K, Stein R, White W, Stolzenburg J, Cindolo L, Liatsikos E, Rais-Bahrami S, Volpe A, Han D, Derweesh I, Lee S, Abdel-Karim A, Branco A, Greco F, Allaf M, Sotelo R, Kallidonis P, Jeong B, Best S, Bazzi W, Pierorazio P, Elsalmy S, Rane A, Han W, Yang B, Schips L, Molina W, Fornara P, Terrone C, Giedelman C, Lee J, Crouzet S, Haber G, Richstone L, Yinghao S, Kim F and Cadeddu J (2012) Urological Laparoendoscopic Single Site Surgery: Multi-Institutional Analysis of Risk Factors for Conversion and Postoperative ComplicationsJournal of Urology, VOL. 187, NO. 6, (1989-1994), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2012. Volume 186Issue 4October 2011Page: 1386-1390 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordstissue donorsnephrectomysurgical procedures, minimally invasivekidneypostoperative complicationsAcknowledgmentsErik S. Fisher, Benjamin Shin and Pierre-Alexandre Eid assisted with data collection.MetricsAuthor Information Ranjith Ramasamy Department of Urology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York More articles by this author Cheguevara Afaneh Department of Surgery/Transplantation Surgery, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York More articles by this author Matthew Katz Department of Urology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York More articles by this author Xueying Chen Department of Urology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York More articles by this author Meredith J. Aull Department of Surgery/Transplantation Surgery, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York More articles by this author David B. Leeser Department of Surgery/Transplantation Surgery, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York More articles by this author Sandip Kapur Department of Surgery/Transplantation Surgery, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York More articles by this author Joseph J. Del Pizzo Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York Financial interest and/or other relationship with Optum Health. More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ..." @default.
• W2022199411 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2022199411 creator A5020729786 @default.
• W2022199411 creator A5025348800 @default.
• W2022199411 creator A5031975596 @default.
• W2022199411 creator A5043776090 @default.
• W2022199411 creator A5056493309 @default.
• W2022199411 creator A5081374227 @default.
• W2022199411 creator A5086457270 @default.
• W2022199411 creator A5088691885 @default.
• W2022199411 date "2011-10-01" @default.
• W2022199411 modified "2023-10-04" @default.
• W2022199411 title "Comparison of Complications of Laparoscopic Versus Laparoendoscopic Single Site Donor Nephrectomy Using the Modified Clavien Grading System" @default.
• W2022199411 cites W1965217838 @default.
• W2022199411 cites W1967549530 @default.
• W2022199411 cites W1974206933 @default.
• W2022199411 cites W1985239043 @default.
• W2022199411 cites W1993956396 @default.
• W2022199411 cites W2022078857 @default.
• W2022199411 cites W2027795128 @default.
• W2022199411 cites W2030453860 @default.
• W2022199411 cites W2031701853 @default.
• W2022199411 cites W2045273355 @default.
• W2022199411 cites W2054984642 @default.
• W2022199411 cites W2061141640 @default.
• W2022199411 cites W2067741437 @default.
• W2022199411 cites W2070514204 @default.
• W2022199411 cites W2096998881 @default.
• W2022199411 cites W2119672185 @default.
• W2022199411 cites W2126859430 @default.
• W2022199411 cites W2130824567 @default.
• W2022199411 cites W2139829425 @default.
• W2022199411 cites W2147849550 @default.
• W2022199411 cites W2160988719 @default.
• W2022199411 cites W2416263925 @default.
• W2022199411 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.05.053" @default.
• W2022199411 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21855950" @default.
• W2022199411 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W2022199411 type Work @default.
• W2022199411 sameAs 2022199411 @default.
• W2022199411 citedByCount "32" @default.
• W2022199411 countsByYear W20221994112012 @default.
• W2022199411 countsByYear W20221994112013 @default.
• W2022199411 countsByYear W20221994112014 @default.
• W2022199411 countsByYear W20221994112015 @default.
• W2022199411 countsByYear W20221994112016 @default.
• W2022199411 countsByYear W20221994112017 @default.
• W2022199411 countsByYear W20221994112018 @default.
• W2022199411 countsByYear W20221994112019 @default.
• W2022199411 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2022199411 hasAuthorship W2022199411A5020729786 @default.
• W2022199411 hasAuthorship W2022199411A5025348800 @default.
• W2022199411 hasAuthorship W2022199411A5031975596 @default.
• W2022199411 hasAuthorship W2022199411A5043776090 @default.
• W2022199411 hasAuthorship W2022199411A5056493309 @default.
• W2022199411 hasAuthorship W2022199411A5081374227 @default.
• W2022199411 hasAuthorship W2022199411A5086457270 @default.
• W2022199411 hasAuthorship W2022199411A5088691885 @default.
• W2022199411 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2022199411 hasConcept C126894567 @default.
• W2022199411 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2022199411 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2022199411 hasConcept C147176958 @default.
• W2022199411 hasConcept C2777286243 @default.
• W2022199411 hasConcept C2780047204 @default.
• W2022199411 hasConcept C2780091579 @default.
• W2022199411 hasConcept C2780227381 @default.
• W2022199411 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2022199411 hasConceptScore W2022199411C126322002 @default.
• W2022199411 hasConceptScore W2022199411C126894567 @default.
• W2022199411 hasConceptScore W2022199411C127413603 @default.
• W2022199411 hasConceptScore W2022199411C141071460 @default.
• W2022199411 hasConceptScore W2022199411C147176958 @default.
• W2022199411 hasConceptScore W2022199411C2777286243 @default.
• W2022199411 hasConceptScore W2022199411C2780047204 @default.
• W2022199411 hasConceptScore W2022199411C2780091579 @default.
• W2022199411 hasConceptScore W2022199411C2780227381 @default.
• W2022199411 hasConceptScore W2022199411C71924100 @default.
• W2022199411 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2022199411 hasLocation W20221994111 @default.
• W2022199411 hasLocation W20221994112 @default.
• W2022199411 hasOpenAccess W2022199411 @default.
• W2022199411 hasPrimaryLocation W20221994111 @default.
• W2022199411 hasRelatedWork W1586374228 @default.
• W2022199411 hasRelatedWork W2003938723 @default.
• W2022199411 hasRelatedWork W2041660778 @default.
• W2022199411 hasRelatedWork W2047967234 @default.
• W2022199411 hasRelatedWork W2118496982 @default.
• W2022199411 hasRelatedWork W2364998975 @default.
• W2022199411 hasRelatedWork W2369162477 @default.
• W2022199411 hasRelatedWork W2439875401 @default.
• W2022199411 hasRelatedWork W4238867864 @default.
• W2022199411 hasRelatedWork W2525756941 @default.
• W2022199411 hasVolume "186" @default.
• W2022199411 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2022199411 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2022199411 magId "2022199411" @default.
• W2022199411 workType "article" @default.