Literature DB >> 12616392

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

M M Buzdon1, E Cho, S C Jacobs, B Jarrell, J L Flowers.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has been shown to be a safe and effective option for renal procurement. Studies comparing open nephrectomy and hand-assisted laparoscopy have emphasized decreased warm ischemia time when compared with "pure" laparoscopic retrieval. However, no data exist that define exactly what constitutes a prolonged warm ischemia time in terms of recipient graft function. The aim of this study was to use a large, single-institution experience with LDN to determine if warm ischemia time correlates with recipient graft function as measured by serum creatinine levels.
METHODS: A total of 640 LDNs were performed from March 1996 to August 2001. Warm ischemia times were prospectively collected and were defined as the time from renal artery occlusion to immersion in iced saline. Serial recipient creatinine levels were measured at 1 week and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months (when possible) from the transplant. Data were analyzed using Pearson correlation analysis at a confidence interval of 95%.
RESULTS: Mean warm ischemia time was 151 s with a standard error of 3.4 s and ranged from 35 to 720 s. Recipient creatinine mean at 1 week was 1.94 mg/dl with a standard error of 0.06 mg/dl and ranged from 0.5 to 10.5 mg/dl. Recipient creatinine mean at 1 month was 1.68 mg/dl with a standard error of 0.06 mg/dl and ranged from 0.6 to 8.5 mg/dl. Recipient creatinine mean at 3 months was 1.60 mg/dl with a standard error of 0.04 mg/dl and ranged from 0.6 to 8.8 mg/dl. Recipient creatinine mean at 6 months was 1.63 mg/dl with a standard error of 0.06 mg/dl and ranged from 0.7 to 13.5 mg/dl. Recipient creatinine mean at 12 months was 1.70 mg/dl with a standard error of 0.07 mg/dl and ranged from 0.5 to 14.5 mg/dl. No correlation was found between warm ischemia time and recipient creatinine levels at 1 week (p = 0.4737), 1 month (p = 0.9180), 3 months (p = 0.6227), 6 months (p = 0.8349), or 12 months (p = 0.2835).
CONCLUSIONS: Warm ischemia time does not correlate with recipient graft function in LDN within the range of times studied. Shorter warm ischemia time associated with open donor nephrectomy and hand-assisted LDN does not necessarily offer a measurable advantage in recipient graft function. During extraction of the kidney, expediency to minimize warm ischemia time should not supersede controlled and safe maneuvers in renal vessel division and extraction of the kidney.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12616392     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-002-8860-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  16 in total

1.  Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: comparable donor/recipient outcomes, costs, and decreased convalescence as compared to open donor nephrectomy.

Authors:  S M Rudich; R Marcovich; J C Magee; J D Punch; D A Campbell; R M Merion; J W Konnak; J S Wolf
Journal:  Transplant Proc       Date:  2001 Feb-Mar       Impact factor: 1.066

2.  Equivalent renal allograft function with laparoscopic versus open liver donor nephrectomies.

Authors:  E London; S Rudich; J McVicar; B Wolfe; R Perez
Journal:  Transplant Proc       Date:  1999 Feb-Mar       Impact factor: 1.066

3.  Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: the University of Maryland 3-year experience.

Authors:  S C Jacobs; E Cho; B J Dunkin; J L Flowers; E Schweitzer; C Cangro; J Fink; A Farney; B Philosophe; B Jarrell; S T Bartlett
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Cadaver kidney graft outcome in relation to ischemia time and HLA match. Collaborative Transplant Study.

Authors:  G Opelz
Journal:  Transplant Proc       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 1.066

5.  Randomized controlled trial of hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open surgical live donor nephrectomy.

Authors:  J S Wolf ; R M Merion; A B Leichtman; D A Campbell; J C Magee; J D Punch; J G Turcotte; J W Konnak
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2001-07-27       Impact factor: 4.939

6.  Increased rates of donation with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Authors:  E J Schweitzer; J Wilson; S Jacobs; C H Machan; B Philosophe; A Farney; J Colonna; B E Jarrell; S T Bartlett
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 12.969

7.  Hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparison with the open approach.

Authors:  M D Stifelman; D Hull; R E Sosa; L M Su; M Hyman; W Stubenbord; S Shichman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy minimizes warm ischemia.

Authors:  K Kercher; D Dahl; R Harland; R Blute; K Gallagher; D Litwin
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.649

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

Authors:  G Ruiz-Deya; S Cheng; E Palmer; R Thomas; D Slakey
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a comparison with the conventional open approach.

Authors:  S L Brown; T R Biehl; M C Rawlins; T R Hefty
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  7 in total

1.  Maximizing the donor pool: use of right kidneys and kidneys with multiple arteries for live donor transplantation.

Authors:  Jennifer E Keller; Charles J Dolce; Daniel Griffin; B Todd Heniford; Kent W Kercher
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-03-05       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Robotic-assisted vs. laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a retrospective comparison of perioperative course and postoperative outcome after 1 year.

Authors:  Anthony Yang; Naman Barman; Edward Chin; Daniel Herron; Antonios Arvelakis; Dianne LaPointe Rudow; Sander S Florman; Michael A Palese
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-08-31

3.  Donor and Recipient Outcomes following Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Massimiliano Creta; Armando Calogero; Caterina Sagnelli; Gaia Peluso; Paola Incollingo; Maria Candida; Gianluca Minieri; Nicola Longo; Ferdinando Fusco; Vincenzo Tammaro; Concetta Anna Dodaro; Francesco Mangiapia; Nicola Carlomagno
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2019-04-22       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  Comparative and prospective analysis of three different approaches for live-donor nephrectomy.

Authors:  Anuar Ibrahim Mitre; Francisco T Dénes; William Carlos Nahas; Fabiano A Simões; José Roberto Colombo; Affonso C Piovesan; José L Chambô; Sami Arap; Miguel Srougi
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.365

5.  Is Euro-Collins better than ringer lactate in live related donor renal transplantation?

Authors:  G Siva Prasad; Chacko N Ninan; Antony Devasia; Lionel Gnanaraj; Nitin S Kekre; Ganesh Gopalakrishnan
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2007-07

6.  Protective response in renal transplantation: no clinical or molecular differences between open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Authors:  Christiano Machado; Denise Maria Avancini Costa Malheiros; Ari Adamy; Luiz Sergio Santos; Agenor Ferreira da Silva Filho; William Carlos Nahas; Francine Brambate Carvalhinho Lemos
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.365

7.  Transition From Hand-Assisted to Pure Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy.

Authors:  Dalsan You; Chunwoo Lee; In Gab Jeong; Duck Jong Han; Bumsik Hong
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2015 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.172

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.