P C Kuo1, L B Johnson, J V Sitzmann. 1. Departments of Surgery, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA. kuop@gunet.georgetown.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the outcomes associated with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) performed as a 23-hour day surgery protocol. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Living donor renal transplantation is associated with immediate graft function and prolonged graft survival. The recent application of laparoscopic technology to living renal donation has refocused attention on the advantages of this donor source. LDN is associated with decreased donor pain, length of stay, time out of work, and opportunity costs. The authors hypothesized that LDN would be a viable 23-hour stay procedure. METHODS: All living donation procedures since May 1998 have been performed with LDN. The 23-hour protocol was initiated in January 1999. LDNs performed from May 1998 to December 1998 and traditional open donor nephrectomy procedures from May 1996 to May 1998 served as historical controls. The following variables were examined: donor sex, related versus nonrelated donation, operative time, blood loss, length of stay, time out of work, recipient and donor serum creatinine levels, hospital charges, and complications. RESULTS: The 23-hour LDN protocol was associated with high degrees of donor satisfaction. Thirty-six of the 41 donors were discharged within 23 hours; 1 was readmitted. Time out of work was equivalent to that of the control group; graft function was identical among all three comparison groups. Hospital charges were equivalent between the control group and the open nephrectomy group and were significantly decreased in the 23-hour group. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy can be performed as a 23-hour stay procedure without incurring additional complications or donor dissatisfaction. By further decreasing opportunity costs and disincentives for donation, LDN may increase the number of potential donors appearing for evaluation.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the outcomes associated with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) performed as a 23-hour day surgery protocol. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Living donor renal transplantation is associated with immediate graft function and prolonged graft survival. The recent application of laparoscopic technology to living renal donation has refocused attention on the advantages of this donor source. LDN is associated with decreased donorpain, length of stay, time out of work, and opportunity costs. The authors hypothesized that LDN would be a viable 23-hour stay procedure. METHODS: All living donation procedures since May 1998 have been performed with LDN. The 23-hour protocol was initiated in January 1999. LDNs performed from May 1998 to December 1998 and traditional open donor nephrectomy procedures from May 1996 to May 1998 served as historical controls. The following variables were examined: donor sex, related versus nonrelated donation, operative time, blood loss, length of stay, time out of work, recipient and donor serum creatinine levels, hospital charges, and complications. RESULTS: The 23-hour LDN protocol was associated with high degrees of donor satisfaction. Thirty-six of the 41 donors were discharged within 23 hours; 1 was readmitted. Time out of work was equivalent to that of the control group; graft function was identical among all three comparison groups. Hospital charges were equivalent between the control group and the open nephrectomy group and were significantly decreased in the 23-hour group. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy can be performed as a 23-hour stay procedure without incurring additional complications or donor dissatisfaction. By further decreasing opportunity costs and disincentives for donation, LDN may increase the number of potential donors appearing for evaluation.
Authors: J M Nogueira; C B Cangro; J C Fink; E Schweitzer; A Wiland; D K Klassen; J Gardner; J Flowers; S Jacobs; E Cho; B Philosophe; S T Bartlett; M R Weir Journal: Transplantation Date: 1999-03-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: J L Flowers; S Jacobs; E Cho; A Morton; W F Rosenberger; D Evans; A L Imbembo; S T Bartlett Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: J A Shea; J A Berlin; D R Bachwich; R N Staroscik; P F Malet; M McGuckin; J S Schwartz; J J Escarce Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1998-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: A M D'Alessandro; H W Sollinger; S J Knechtle; M Kalayoglu; W A Kisken; D T Uehling; T D Moon; E M Messing; R C Bruskewitz; J D Pirsch Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1995-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Patrick M Chiasson; David E Pace; Christopher M Schlachta; Joseph Mamazza; Eric C Poulin Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Julie Hallet; Antonio Sa Cunha; Daniel Cherqui; Brice Gayet; Diane Goéré; Philippe Bachellier; Alexis Laurent; David Fuks; Francis Navarro; Patrick Pessaux Journal: World J Surg Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Steffan Jackobs; Thomas Becker; Rainer Lück; Mark D Jäger; Björn Nashan; Wilfried Gwinner; Anke Schwarz; Jürgen Klempnauer; Michael Neipp Journal: World J Urol Date: 2005-09-23 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Ki Byung Song; Song Cheol Kim; Jae Berm Park; Young Hoon Kim; Young Soo Jung; Myung-Hwan Kim; Sung-Koo Lee; Dong-Wan Seo; Sang Soo Lee; Do Hyun Park; Duck Jong Han Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-05-10 Impact factor: 4.584