Jonas Wadström1, Pernilla Lindström. 1. Department of Surgery, Uppsala University Hospital, SE-751 85 Uppsala, Sweden. jonas.wadstrom@transpl.uas.lul.se
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most living-donor nephrectomies are performed either by transperitoneal laparoscopy, with or without hand assistance, or by retroperitoneal open surgery, with or without video assistance. We therefore started to combine the benefits of these techniques: hand assistance to increase safety and control of the laparoscopic technique, and the retroperitoneal approach to minimize the risk of complications associated with the transabdominal approach. Herein, we report on our first 10 donors nephrectomized with hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopy. RESULTS: Only left nephrectomies were performed. One donor had two renal arteries and two donors had retroaortic renal veins. There were no intra- or postoperative complications. Mean operating time was 155 min (110-230 min). CONCLUSIONS: Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopy in living-donor nephrectomy is a promising new method that could reduce the risks of traditional transperitoneal laparoscopy and should be further evaluated.
BACKGROUND: Most living-donor nephrectomies are performed either by transperitoneal laparoscopy, with or without hand assistance, or by retroperitoneal open surgery, with or without video assistance. We therefore started to combine the benefits of these techniques: hand assistance to increase safety and control of the laparoscopic technique, and the retroperitoneal approach to minimize the risk of complications associated with the transabdominal approach. Herein, we report on our first 10 donors nephrectomized with hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopy. RESULTS: Only left nephrectomies were performed. One donor had two renal arteries and two donors had retroaortic renal veins. There were no intra- or postoperative complications. Mean operating time was 155 min (110-230 min). CONCLUSIONS: Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopy in living-donor nephrectomy is a promising new method that could reduce the risks of traditional transperitoneal laparoscopy and should be further evaluated.
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
Authors: Roger Wahba; Robert Kleinert; Martin Hellmich; Nadine Heiermann; Georg Dieplinger; Hans A Schlößer; Denise Buchner; Christine Kurschat; Dirk L Stippel Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 4.584
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
Authors: Denise M D Özdemir-van Brunschot; Giel G Koning; Kees C J H M van Laarhoven; Mehmet Ergün; Sharon B C E van Horne; Maroeska M Rovers; Michiel C Warlé Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jeffrey A Lafranca; Emerentia Q W Spoon; Jacqueline van de Wetering; Jan N M IJzermans; Frank J M F Dor Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jeannette D Widmer; Andrea Schlegel; Philipp Kron; Marc Schiesser; Jens G Brockmann; Markus K Muller Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 2.264