BACKGROUND: There has been a surge of minimally invasive procedures for living donor nephrectomy. We compared our minimal incision living donor (MILD) nephrectomy to hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) living donor nephrectomy METHODS: We conducted a Medline search and compared our first 45 MILD nephrectomies to the data from the University of Michigan (UM), Tulane University (TU), and the University of Chicago (UC). RESULTS: The MILD incision was smaller than the cumulative incisions in the UM and UC groups (8.6, 11 and 10.4 cm, respectively). The operating times were similar in the UM and UC groups (209, 246, and 215 min, respectively). The UM and TU lengths of hospital stay (1.8 and 2.2 days) were shorter than those of the MILD and UC groups (2.5 and 2.8 days). CONCLUSIONS: MILD nephrectomy has results similar to those of HAL living donor nephrectomy. It allows the surgeon with a traditionally trained background to perform a safe, minimally invasive operation without laparoscopic technology.
BACKGROUND: There has been a surge of minimally invasive procedures for living donor nephrectomy. We compared our minimal incision living donor (MILD) nephrectomy to hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) living donor nephrectomy METHODS: We conducted a Medline search and compared our first 45 MILD nephrectomies to the data from the University of Michigan (UM), Tulane University (TU), and the University of Chicago (UC). RESULTS: The MILD incision was smaller than the cumulative incisions in the UM and UC groups (8.6, 11 and 10.4 cm, respectively). The operating times were similar in the UM and UC groups (209, 246, and 215 min, respectively). The UM and TU lengths of hospital stay (1.8 and 2.2 days) were shorter than those of the MILD and UC groups (2.5 and 2.8 days). CONCLUSIONS:MILD nephrectomy has results similar to those of HAL living donor nephrectomy. It allows the surgeon with a traditionally trained background to perform a safe, minimally invasive operation without laparoscopic technology.
Authors: Robin Ruszat; Tullio Sulser; Michael Dickenmann; Thomas Wolff; Lorenz Gürke; Thomas Eugster; Igor Langer; Peter Vogelbach; Jürg Steiger; Thomas C Gasser; Christian G Stief; Alexander Bachmann Journal: World J Urol Date: 2006-01-25 Impact factor: 4.226