Response to Letter to the Editor RE : Hirose et al.,Safety and Efficacy of Retroperitoneoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy: Comparison of Early Complication,Donor and Recipient Outcome with Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy by Hirose et al. (From: Goyal K,Singh AK,Kumar U,et al. J Endourol 2019;33:503;DOI: 10.1089/end.2019.0099)
Restricted accessReplyFirst published online June, 2019
Response to Letter to the Editor RE : Hirose et al.,Safety and Efficacy of Retroperitoneoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy: Comparison of Early Complication,Donor and Recipient Outcome with Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy by Hirose et al. (From: Goyal K,Singh AK,Kumar U,et al. J Endourol 2019;33:503;DOI: 10.1089/end.2019.0099)
ModiP, KadamG, DevraA. Obtaining cuff of inferior vena cava by use of the Endo-TA stapler in retroperitoneoscopic right-side donor nephrectomy. Urology, 2007; 69:832–834.
2.
KumarA, ChaturvediS, GuliaA, et al.Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Comparison of outcomes right versus left. Transplant Proc, 2018; 50:2327–2332.
3.
HiroseT, HottaK, IwamiD, et al.Safety and efficacy of retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy: Comparison of early complication, donor and recipient outcome with hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. J Endourol, 2018; 32:1120–1124.
4.
BinsalehS, MadboulyK, MatsumotoED, et al.A prospective randomized study of pfannenstiel versus expanded port site incision for intact specimen extraction in laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. J Endourol, 2015; 29:913–918.
