BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy offers advantages to the donor in terms of decreased pain and shorter recuperation. Heretofore no detailed analysis of the recipient of laparoscopically procured kidneys has been performed. The purpose of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic donor nephrectomy had any deleterious effect on the recipient. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all live donor renal transplantations performed from January 1995 through April 1998. The control group received kidneys procured via a standard flank approach (Open). Rejection was diagnosed histologically. Creatinine clearance was calculated using the Cockroft-Gault formula. RESULTS: A total of 110 patients received kidneys from laparoscopic (Lap) and 48 from open donors. One-year recipient (100% vs. 97.0%) and graft (93.5% vs. 91.1%) survival rates were similar for the Open and Lap groups, respectively. A similar incidence of vascular thrombosis (3.4% vs. 2.1%, P=NS) and ureteral complications (9.1% vs. 6.3%, P=NS) were seen in the Lap and Open groups, respectively. The incidence of acute rejection for the first month was 30.1% for the Lap group and 31.9% for the Open group (P=NS). The rate of decline of serum creatinine level in the early posttransplantation period was initially greater in the Open group, but by postoperative day 4 no significant difference existed. No difference was observed in allograft function long-term. The median length of hospital stay was 7.0 days for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy does not adversely effect recipient outcome. The previously demonstrated benefits to the donor, and the increased willingness of individuals to undergo live kidney donation, coupled with the acceptable outcomes experienced by recipients of laparoscopically procured kidneys justifies the continued development and adoption of this operation.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy offers advantages to the donor in terms of decreased pain and shorter recuperation. Heretofore no detailed analysis of the recipient of laparoscopically procured kidneys has been performed. The purpose of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic donor nephrectomy had any deleterious effect on the recipient. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all live donor renal transplantations performed from January 1995 through April 1998. The control group received kidneys procured via a standard flank approach (Open). Rejection was diagnosed histologically. Creatinine clearance was calculated using the Cockroft-Gault formula. RESULTS: A total of 110 patients received kidneys from laparoscopic (Lap) and 48 from open donors. One-year recipient (100% vs. 97.0%) and graft (93.5% vs. 91.1%) survival rates were similar for the Open and Lap groups, respectively. A similar incidence of vascular thrombosis (3.4% vs. 2.1%, P=NS) and ureteral complications (9.1% vs. 6.3%, P=NS) were seen in the Lap and Open groups, respectively. The incidence of acute rejection for the first month was 30.1% for the Lap group and 31.9% for the Open group (P=NS). The rate of decline of serum creatinine level in the early posttransplantation period was initially greater in the Open group, but by postoperative day 4 no significant difference existed. No difference was observed in allograft function long-term. The median length of hospital stay was 7.0 days for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy does not adversely effect recipient outcome. The previously demonstrated benefits to the donor, and the increased willingness of individuals to undergo live kidney donation, coupled with the acceptable outcomes experienced by recipients of laparoscopically procured kidneys justifies the continued development and adoption of this operation.
Authors: Robin Ruszat; Tullio Sulser; Michael Dickenmann; Thomas Wolff; Lorenz Gürke; Thomas Eugster; Igor Langer; Peter Vogelbach; Jürg Steiger; Thomas C Gasser; Christian G Stief; Alexander Bachmann Journal: World J Urol Date: 2006-01-25 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Prakash R Paragi; Zachary Klaassen; H Stephen Fletcher; Matthew Tichauer; Ronald S Chamberlain; Jason R Wellen; Harry Sun; Stuart Geffner Journal: World J Surg Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Dinesh Samarasekera; David S H Kim; Rachel Wang; Gordon Yip; Steven S Tang; Christopher Nguan Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Eric J Hazebroek; Diederik Gommers; Michiel A Schreve; Teun van Gelder; Joke I Roodnat; Willem Weimar; H Jaap Bonjer; Jan N M IJzermans Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Anuar Ibrahim Mitre; Francisco T Dénes; William Carlos Nahas; Fabiano A Simões; José Roberto Colombo; Affonso C Piovesan; José L Chambô; Sami Arap; Miguel Srougi Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.365