Literature DB >> 11547056

Open donor, laparoscopic donor and hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparison of outcomes.

G Ruiz-Deya1, S Cheng, E Palmer, R Thomas, D Slakey.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In experienced hands laparoscopic surgery has been shown to be safe for procuring kidneys for transplantation that function identically to open nephrectomy controls. While searching for a safer and easier approach to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, hand assisted laparoscopic techniques have been added to the surgical armamentarium. We compare allograft function in patients with greater than 1-year followup who underwent open donor (historic series), classic laparoscopic and hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The charts of 48 patients who underwent open donor, laparoscopic donor or hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy were reviewed. Only patients with greater than 1-year followup and complete charts were included in our study. Of these patients 34 underwent consecutive laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy and 14 underwent open donor nephrectomy. Mean patient age plus or minus standard deviation (SD) was 36.5 +/- 8.4 years for donors and 29 +/- 17 for recipients at transplantation (range 13 months to 69 years). In the laparoscopic group 11 patients underwent the transperitoneal technique, and 23 underwent hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy.
RESULTS: Total operating time was significantly reduced with the hand assisted laparoscopic technique compared with classic laparoscopy, as was the time from skin incision to kidney removal and warm ischemic time. Average warm ischemic time plus or minus SD was 3.9 +/- 0.3 minutes for laparoscopic nephrectomy and 1.6 +/- 0.2 for hand assisted laparoscopy (p <0.05). Long-term followup of serum creatinine levels revealed no significant differences among the 3 groups. Comparison of those levels for recipients of open nephrectomy versus laparoscopic and hand assisted laparoscopic techniques revealed p values greater than 0.5. No blood transfusions were necessary. Complications included adrenal vein injury in 1 patient, small bowel obstruction in 2, abdominal hernia at the trocar site in 1 and deep venous thrombosis in 1.
CONCLUSIONS: Classic laparoscopic donor and hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomies appear to be safe procedures for harvesting kidneys. The recipient graft function is similar in the laparoscopic and open surgery groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11547056

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  18 in total

1.  Warm ischemia time does not correlate with recipient graft function in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Authors:  M M Buzdon; E Cho; S C Jacobs; B Jarrell; J L Flowers
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-03-06       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Current concepts in transplant surgery: laparoscopic living donor of the kidney.

Authors:  Andreas Paul; Jürgen Treckmann; Anja Gallinat; Oliver Witzke; Udo Vester; Christoph E Broelsch
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2007-05-26       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 3.  Minimally invasive donor nephrectomy: current state of the art.

Authors:  Nicole M Shockcor; Sam Sultan; Josue Alvarez-Casas; Philip S Brazio; Michael Phelan; John C LaMattina; Rolf N Barth
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2018-08-21       Impact factor: 3.445

4.  Quality of life following living donor nephrectomy comparing classical flank incision and anterior vertical mini-incision.

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

5.  Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, complications and management: a single center experience.

Authors:  Volkan Tuğcu; Selçuk Şahin; İsmail Yiğitbaşı; Nevzat Can Şener; Fatih Gökhan Akbay; Ali İhsan Taşçı
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2017-01-06

6.  Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open nephrectomies in living donors.

Authors:  Amer Rajab; John E Mahoney; Mitchell L Henry; Elmahdi A Elkhammas; Ginny L Bumgardner; Ronald M Ferguson; Ronald P Pelletier
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.089

7.  [The hand assisted transperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy].

Authors:  A Hamza; A Jurczok; O Rettkowski; K Fischer; P Fornara
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 0.639

8.  Persistent post-transplant polyuria managed by bilateral native-kidney laparoscopic nephrectomy.

Authors:  Dragan Kravarusic; David L Sigalet; Lorraine A Hamiwka; Julian P Midgley; Andrew W Wade; Silviu Grisaru
Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol       Date:  2006-04-20       Impact factor: 3.714

9.  Donor complications following laparoscopic compared to hand-assisted living donor nephrectomy: an analysis of the literature.

Authors:  Whitney R Halgrimson; Jeffrey Campsen; M Susan Mandell; Mara A Kelly; Igal Kam; Michael A Zimmerman
Journal:  J Transplant       Date:  2010-01-06

10.  Transperitoneal laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Current status.

Authors:  A Srivastava; N Gupta; Anant Kumar; Rakesh Kapoor; Deepak Dubey
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2007-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.