Sanjay Gogoi | PubMed Health

PubMed2004

Is povidone iodine an alternative to silver nitrate for renal pelvic instillation sclerotherapy in chyluria?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and toxicity of 1% silver nitrate, 0.2% povidone iodine and 50% dextrose in renal pelvic instillation sclerotherapy (RPIS) for chyluria. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a prospective randomized comparative study from January 1999 to June 2003, 106 patients (61 males and 45 females; mean age 36 years, sd 12, range 14-65) were randomized to receive 1% silver nitrate, 0.2% povidone iodine or 50% dextrose as RPIS. In all, nine doses were given at 8-h intervals, and patients followed at 6 weeks and then at 3-monthly intervals. Patients with 'persistence' or 'recurrence' of chyluria were treated with second course of RPIS using same sclerosant. RESULTS: The dextrose treatment was discontinued at mid-term because of poor success (one of 21 patients, P < 0.001). Of 85 patients, 44 received silver nitrate and 41 povidone iodine; both groups were well-matched and the mean follow-up was 28.4 and 23.3 months, respectively. 'Immediate clearance' was recorded in 91% and 98%, and recurrence in 21% and 22% of patients after the first course of RPIS, after silver nitrate and povidone, respectively; Kaplan-Meier estimates of 'disease-free duration' in the two groups (23.6 vs 20.1 months) were also similar (P = 0.7906). The cumulative success rate after two courses of RPIS was 82% (silver nitrate) and 83% (povidone; P = 1.0). Five (11%) patients in the silver nitrate and one (2%) in the povidone group had significant flank pain during treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Povidone iodine 0.2% is as effective for RPIS as 1% silver nitrate.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2002

Laparoscopy-assisted live donor nephrectomy: a modified cost-effective approach for developing countries.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Because of the prohibitive cost of laparoscopic disposable instruments such as the PneumoSleeve, Endocatch, and vascular staples, laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy has not gained wide acceptance in many developing countries. To circumvent this problem, we have developed a cost-saving approach, which is described herein and compared with the open method. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-nine patients underwent laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy at our institute, of which two were performed by the hand-assisted technique, five by the technique described by Fabrizio et al and forty-two by our modified cost-saving laparoscopy-assisted technique (LD). The latter patients were compared with 50 patients who had a standard open donor nephrectomy (OD) through a rib-resecting (12th rib) flank incision. Our technique is similar to the procedure described by Fabrizio et al except for a 6- to 8-cm incision placed in the subcostal region to retrieve the kidney after the renal vessels are cut and ligated as in the open procedure. The costs of the various techniques at our institute were compared. RESULTS: The LD and OD groups were similar in terms of age, weight, side of nephrectomy, and number of renal vessels. The operative time was longer in the LD group than in the OD group (180.7 +/- 18 minutes v 101.5 +/- 10.4 minutes), whereas the mean intraoperative blood loss was less (85.5 +/- 21.35 v 220 +/- 22.5 mL; P < 0.001). Warm ischemia time and recipient outcomes were comparable in the two groups. Patients in the LD group had lower postoperative narcotic (tramadol hydrochloride) requirement (155.3 +/- 53.3 mg v 251.8 +/- 63.1 mg; P < 0.001) and earlier discharge from the hospital (3.14 v 5.7 days; P < 0.001). The mean expense incurred was US$175 v US$160 in the LD and OD groups, respectively. The cost of the hand-assisted and standard laparoscopic techniques was significantly higher than that of our modified technique. CONCLUSIONS: Our modified technique of laparoscopy-assisted live-donor nephrectomy avoids the use of costly disposables yet offers the advantages of lesser morbidity and small incision of LD. It is cost effective and is an alternative to open nephrectomy in the developing world.

Adult↗