OBJECTIVE: To determine whether intraoperative diuresis, postoperative recovery, and early graft function differ between laparoscopic open nephrectomy (LDN) and open donor nephrectomy (ODN). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy can reduce donor complications in terms of decreased pain and shorter convalescence. Although its technical feasibility has been established, concerns have been raised about the impaired renal function resulting from pneumoperitoneum and short- and long-term function of kidneys removed by LDN. METHODS: Between December 1997 and December 2000, 89 LDNs were performed at the authors' institution. These were compared with 83 conventional ODNs performed between January 1994 and December 1997. Graft function, intraoperative variables, and clinical outcome were compared. RESULTS: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was attempted in 89 patients and completed in 91% (81/89). Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group. During kidney dissection, the amount of fluids administered and intraoperative diuresis were significantly lower for LDN. In recipients, mean serum creatinine was higher after LDN compared with ODN 1 day after surgery. From postoperative days 2 until 28, there were no differences in serum creatinine. Graft survival rates were similar for LDN and ODN. CONCLUSIONS: Donors can benefit from an improvement in postoperative recovery after LDN. Assessment of an adequate perioperative hydration protocol is mandatory to ensure optimal kidney quality during laparoscopic procurement. The initial graft survival and function rates justify continued development and adoption of LDN.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether intraoperative diuresis, postoperative recovery, and early graft function differ between laparoscopic open nephrectomy (LDN) and open donor nephrectomy (ODN). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy can reduce donor complications in terms of decreased pain and shorter convalescence. Although its technical feasibility has been established, concerns have been raised about the impaired renal function resulting from pneumoperitoneum and short- and long-term function of kidneys removed by LDN. METHODS: Between December 1997 and December 2000, 89 LDNs were performed at the authors' institution. These were compared with 83 conventional ODNs performed between January 1994 and December 1997. Graft function, intraoperative variables, and clinical outcome were compared. RESULTS: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was attempted in 89 patients and completed in 91% (81/89). Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group. During kidney dissection, the amount of fluids administered and intraoperative diuresis were significantly lower for LDN. In recipients, mean serum creatinine was higher after LDN compared with ODN 1 day after surgery. From postoperative days 2 until 28, there were no differences in serum creatinine. Graft survival rates were similar for LDN and ODN. CONCLUSIONS: Donors can benefit from an improvement in postoperative recovery after LDN. Assessment of an adequate perioperative hydration protocol is mandatory to ensure optimal kidney quality during laparoscopic procurement. The initial graft survival and function rates justify continued development and adoption of LDN.
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 R Leventhal; R K Deeik; R J Joehl; R V Rege; C H Herman; J P Fryer; D Kaufman; M Abecassis; F P Stuart Journal: Transplantation Date: 2000-08-27 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: L E Ratner; R A Montgomery; W R Maley; C Cohen; J Burdick; K D Chavin; D S Kittur; P Colombani; A Klein; E S Kraus; L R Kavoussi Journal: Transplantation Date: 2000-06-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: E M McDougall; T G Monk; J S Wolf; M Hicks; R V Clayman; S Gardner; P A Humphrey; T Sharp; K Martin Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: M Giessing; T F Fuller; S Deger; J Roigas; M Tüllmann; L Liefeldt; K Budde; T Fischer; B Winkelmann; D Schnorr; S A Loening Journal: Urologe A Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: S V Demyttenaere; L S Feldman; S Bergman; S Gholoum; C Moriello; B Unikowsky; S Fraser; F Carli; G M Fried Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2005-12-09 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: M Y Lind; E J Hazebroek; I M Bajema; F Bonthuis; W C J Hop; R W F de Bruin; J N M Ijzermans Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2006-05-13 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Eric J Hazebroek; Ron W F de Bruin; Nicole D Bouvy; Richard L Marquet; Fred Bonthuis; Ingeborg M Bajema; Don P Hayes; Jan N M Ijzermans; H Jaap Bonjer Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Ingrid R A M Mertens zur Borg; Manuela Di Biase; Serge Verbrugge; Jan N M Ijzermans; Diederik Gommers Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2007-05-24 Impact factor: 4.584