S L Brown1, T R Biehl, M C Rawlins, T R Hefty. 1. Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is an emerging technique that has not yet gained widespread acceptance in the transplant community due to perceived technical difficulties. However, the potential advantages of decreasing donor morbidity, decreasing hospital stay and improving convalescence while producing a functional kidney for the recipient may prove to enhance living related renal transplantation. We report our early experience with laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 50 consecutive laparoscopic nephrectomies performed from October 1998 to May 2000 and compared them with 50 consecutive open donor nephrectomies, which served as historical controls. RESULTS: Donor age, donor sex and number of HLA mismatches did not differ statistically in the 2 groups. In the laparoscopic and open nephrectomy groups mean followup was 109 and 331 days (p = 0.0001), mean operative time was 234 and 208 minutes (p = 0.0068), mean estimated blood loss was 114 and 193 ml (p = 0.0001), and mean hospital stay was 3.5 and 4.7 days (p = 0.0001), respectively. Average renal warm ischemia time was 2.8 minutes in the laparoscopic nephrectomy group. Serum creatinine did not differ statistically in the 2 groups preoperatively or postoperatively at days 1 and 5, and 1 month. The rate of recipient ureteral complications in the laparoscopic and open nephrectomy groups was 2% (1 of 50 cases) and 6% (3 of 50), respectively (not significant). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is an attractive alternative to open donor nephrectomy. Laparoscopic nephrectomy results in less postoperative discomfort, an improved cosmetic result and more rapid recovery for the donor with equivalent functional results and complications.
PURPOSE: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is an emerging technique that has not yet gained widespread acceptance in the transplant community due to perceived technical difficulties. However, the potential advantages of decreasing donor morbidity, decreasing hospital stay and improving convalescence while producing a functional kidney for the recipient may prove to enhance living related renal transplantation. We report our early experience with laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 50 consecutive laparoscopic nephrectomies performed from October 1998 to May 2000 and compared them with 50 consecutive open donor nephrectomies, which served as historical controls. RESULTS:Donor age, donor sex and number of HLA mismatches did not differ statistically in the 2 groups. In the laparoscopic and open nephrectomy groups mean followup was 109 and 331 days (p = 0.0001), mean operative time was 234 and 208 minutes (p = 0.0068), mean estimated blood loss was 114 and 193 ml (p = 0.0001), and mean hospital stay was 3.5 and 4.7 days (p = 0.0001), respectively. Average renal warm ischemia time was 2.8 minutes in the laparoscopic nephrectomy group. Serum creatinine did not differ statistically in the 2 groups preoperatively or postoperatively at days 1 and 5, and 1 month. The rate of recipient ureteral complications in the laparoscopic and open nephrectomy groups was 2% (1 of 50 cases) and 6% (3 of 50), respectively (not significant). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is an attractive alternative to open donor nephrectomy. Laparoscopic nephrectomy results in less postoperative discomfort, an improved cosmetic result and more rapid recovery for the donor with equivalent functional results and complications.
Authors: Jee Soo Park; Hyun Kyu Ahn; Joonchae Na; Hyung Ho Lee; Young Eun Yoon; Min Gee Yoon; Woong Kyu Han Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Kazufumi Shimazutsu; Kenichiro Uemura; Kathryn M Auten; Matthew F Baldwin; Samuel W Belknap; Francisco La Banca; Maximilian C Jones; Deborah J McClaine; Rebecca J McClaine; W Steve Eubanks; Jonathan S Stamler; James D Reynolds Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.689