Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy in 210 consecutive patients: Outcomes, cost, and changes in practice patterns

  • Original article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Initially slow to gain widespread acceptance within the urological community, laparoscopic nephrectomy is now becoming the standard of care in many centers. Our institution has seen a dramatic transformation in practice patterns and patient outcomes in the 2 years following the introduction of laparoscopic nephrectomy. We compare the experience with laparoscopic and open nephrectomy within a single medical center. Methods: Data were collected for all patients undergoing elective nephrectomy (live donor, radical, simple, partial, and nephroureterectomy) between August 1998 and September 2002. Data were analyzed by Wilcoxon rank sum, chi-square, and Fisher’s exact test. A p-value <0.05 was considered significant. Results: Of the patients, 92 underwent open nephrectomy, and 118 were treated laparoscopically (87 hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy, 31 totally laparoscopic). There was one conversion (0.8%). Patient demographics and indications for surgery were equivalent for both groups. Mean operative time for laparoscopic nephrectomy (230 min) was longer than for open (187 min, p = 0.0001). Blood loss (97 ml vs 216 ml, p = 0.0001), length of stay (3.9 days vs 5.9 days, p = 0.0001), perioperative morbidity (14% vs 31%, p = 0.01), and wound complications (6.8% vs 27.1%, p = 0.0001) were all significantly less for laparoscopic nephrectomy. For live donors, time to convalescence was less (12 days vs 33 days, p = 0.02), but hospital charges were more for patients treated laparoscopically ($19,007 vs $13,581, p = 0.0001). Conclusions: Laparoscopic nephrectomy results in less blood loss, fewer hospital days, fewer complications, and more rapid recovery than open surgery. We believe that these benefits outweigh the higher hospital charges associated with the laparoscopic approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. PH Barrett DD Fentie LA Taranger (1998) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic radical nephrectomy with morcellation for renal cell carcinoma: the Saskatoon experience. Urology 52 23–28 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00159-9 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1czjsFGrtw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9671864

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. MD Dunn AJ Portis AL Shalhav AM Elbahnasy C Heidorn EM McDougall RV Clayman (2000) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy: a 9-year experience. J Urol 164 1153–1159 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3cvksV2hsQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10992356

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. JL Flowers S Jacobs E Cho A Morton WF Rosenberger D Evans AL Imbembo ST Bartlett (1997) ArticleTitleComparison of open and laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Ann Surg 226 483–489 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c%2Fht1Srsw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9351716

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. IS Gill D Schweizer MG Hobart GT Sung EA Klein AC Novick (2000) ArticleTitleRetroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: the Cleveland Clinic experience. J Urol 163 1665–1670 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c3lvFKjtQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10799156

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. BT Heniford BD Matthews EA Box CL Backus KW Kercher FL Greene RF Sing (2002) ArticleTitleOptimal teaching environment for laparoscopic ventral herniorrhaphy. Hernia 6 17–20 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD38zks12isw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle12090574

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. P Lindstrom J Haggman J Wadstrom (2002) ArticleTitleHand-assisted surgery (HALS) for live donor nephrectomy is more time- and cost-effective than standard laparoscopic nephrectomy. Surg Endosc 16 422–425 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s00464-001-9120-8 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD387psFSitA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11928020

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. JK Jacobs RE Goldstein RJ Geer (1997) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic adrenalectomy: a new standard of care. Ann Surg 225 495–501 Occurrence Handle10.1097/00000658-199705000-00006 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByiA3snkt1I%3D Occurrence Handle9193177

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. CP Nelson JS Wolf Jr (2002) ArticleTitleComparison of hand-assisted versus standard laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for suspected renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 167 1989–1994 Occurrence Handle11956425

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Y Ono T Kinukawa R Hattori S Yamada N Nishiyama K Mizutani S Ohshima (2001) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a five-year experience. Urology 53 280–286 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00505-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. DE Pace PM Chiasson CM Schlachta J Mamazza EC Poulin (2002) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic splenectomy: does the training of minimally invasive surgical fellows affect outcomes? Surg Endosc 16 954–956 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s00464-001-8212-9 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD38vgvFGmtg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle12163962

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. A Park M Marcaccio M Sternbach D Witzke P Fitzgerald (1999) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic versus open splenectomy. Arch Surg 134 1263–1269 Occurrence Handle10.1001/archsurg.134.11.1263 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c%2Fit1Gksg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10555644

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Cissy Moore-Swartz for her editorial assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, 1000 Blythe Blvd., Charlotte, NC, 28203, USA

    K. W. Kercher, B. T. Heniford, B. D. Matthews, T. I. Smith & A. E. Lincourt

  2. Department of Transplantation, Carolinas Medical Center, 1000 Blythe Blvd., Charlotte, NC, 28203, USA

    D. H. Hayes & L. B. Eskind

  3. Department of Urology, Carolinas Medical Center, 1000 Blythe Blvd., Charlotte, NC, 28203, USA

    P. B. Irby & C. M. Teigland

Authors
  1. K. W. Kercher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. T. Heniford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. D. Matthews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. T. I. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. E. Lincourt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. D. H. Hayes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. L. B. Eskind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. P. B. Irby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. C. M. Teigland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. W. Kercher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kercher, K., Heniford, B., Matthews, B. et al. Laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy in 210 consecutive patients: Outcomes, cost, and changes in practice patterns. Surg Endosc 17, 1889–1895 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-003-8808-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-003-8808-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation