PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11706304

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: an update.

W W Roberts·L R Kavoussi
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was developed primarily to increase the number of kidneys available for donation. Further evidence of the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has been reported in the literature, as have studies on the cost-effectiveness of this procedure and its role in removing disincentives for renal donation. Specific technical modifications have been developed and refined that improve outcomes when performing laparoscopic harvesting of right kidneys. Other technical modifications have been developed for use in obese patients. With the adoption of these modified techniques, equivalent results to open donor nephrectomy have been reported. Recently, a wide range of alternative approaches (hand-assisted, retroperitoneal, and gasless laparoscopy) have been utilized for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Explore related subjects

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHumansKidney TransplantationLaparoscopyNephrectomyTissue DonorsJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W W Roberts, L R Kavoussi. 2001. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: an update.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00041552-200111000-00007

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

Low-cost on-the-job peer training of nurses improved immunization coverage in Indonesia.

In Indonesia responsibility for immunizations is placed on local government health centres and on the nurses who provide the immunizations at each centre. An on-the-job peer training programme for these nurses, which was designed to improve the immunization performance of poorly performing health centres in terms of coverage and practice in Maluku province, was evaluated. Experienced immunization nurses were sent to health centres where nurses were inexperienced or performing poorly; the experienced nurses spent 1-2 weeks providing on-the-job training for the less experienced ones. An evaluation of the 13 centres that participated in the programme and the 95 that did not found that the programme increased both immunization coverage and the quality of practice. Coverage of diphtheria/pertussis/tetanus (DPT), polio, and measles vaccinations rose by about 39% in all 13 participating centres when compared with non-participating centres, and by about 54% in the 11 centres that had a functioning transportation system during the year after training. These results reflect increases in the actual number of doses given and improvements in the accuracy of reports. Potential threats to the study's validity were examined and found not to be significant. The out-of-pocket cost of the training programme was about US$ 53 per trainee or about US$ 0.05 per additional vaccine reported to have been given. The marginal cost per additional fully immunized child was estimated to be US$ 0.50.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2002

Cost-effectiveness analysis of gestational diabetes mellitus screening in France.

OBJECTIVE: To compare three strategies for gestational diabetes screening (i) screening of high-risk pregnant women with the 50 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT); (ii) screening of all pregnant women with the 50 g OGTT; (iii) screening of all pregnant women according to the 75 g OGTT. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. The outcome measures, i.e. macrosomia, prematurity, perinatal mortality, hypertensive disorders rates were estimated from published studies and the costs from a prospective study involving 120 pregnant women. RESULTS: Compared to the first strategy, the cost to obtain one unit of additional effectiveness with the second screening strategy, was up to 1.1 times more expensive, and with the third strategy was up to 3.7 times more expensive. CONCLUSION: The costs per case prevented reflect a favourable cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) for screening of high-risk pregnant women by 50 g oral glucose test.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗