Literature DB >> 12396444

Hand-assisted and conventional laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a comparison of two contemporary techniques.

Abbey B Gershbein1, Gerhard J Fuchs.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Laparoscopic nephrectomy may make kidney donation more attractive. Modifications such as hand assistance may improve surgical outcomes. We compared our initial experience with hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy with that of the conventional laparoscopic technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two series of similar patients underwent conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN; N = 15) or hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HLDN; N = 29). Operative time, warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss, complications, analgesic use, postoperative recovery, and serum creatinine concentration were compared.
RESULTS: Open conversion was required in one HLDN patient because of intra-abdominal adhesions, and this patient was excluded from further analysis. The operative time, time to kidney extraction, and warm ischemia time were significantly shorter in the HLDN group, averaging 204.8 v 275.7 minutes, 173.4 v 239.3 minutes, and 2 minutes 21 seconds v 3 minutes 45 seconds, respectively. The intraoperative complication rates were 3.6% and 13.3%, respectively (P = 0.07). The postoperative complication rates were 6.8% and 6.7%. All grafts were functioning at the end of the study period, and there were no differences in rejection episodes, need for dialysis, complications, or nadir creatinine concentration according to the method of harvest.
CONCLUSIONS: Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy provides shorter operative and warm ischemia times without a significant increase in donor morbidity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12396444     DOI: 10.1089/089277902760367476

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  6 in total

1.  Surgical team composition has a major impact on effectiveness and costs in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Authors:  Denise M D Özdemir-van Brunschot; Michiel C Warlé; Michel F van der Jagt; Janneke P C Grutters; Sharon B C E van Horne; Heinrich J Kloke; Johannes A van der Vliet; Johan F Langenhuijsen; Frank C d'Ancona
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-11-02       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Renal Function Recovery in Donors and Recipients after Live Donor Nephrectomy: Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic vs. Open Procedures.

Authors:  Bum Soo Kim; Eun Sang Yoo; Tae-Hwan Kim; Tae Gyun Kwon
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2010-04-20

Review 3.  A comparison of technique modifications in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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

Review 4.  Hand-assisted and total laparoscopic nephrectomy: a comparison.

Authors:  Jonathan Silberstein; J Kellogg Parsons
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2009 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.172

5.  Hand-Assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy PERiumbilical versus Pfannenstiel incision and return to normal physical ACTivity (HAPERPACT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Yakup Kulu; Beat P Müller-Stich; Omid Ghamarnejad; Elias Khajeh; Georgios Polychronidis; Mohammad Golriz; Felix Nickel; Laura Benner; Philipp Knebel; Markus Diener; Christian Morath; Martin Zeier; Markus W Büchler; Arianeb Mehrabi
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2018-07-13       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 6.  Laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mark P Broe; Rose Galvin; Lorna G Keenan; Richard E Power
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2018-07-07
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.