Literature DB >> 14665839

Donor nephrectomy: A comparison of techniques and results of open, hand assisted and full laparoscopic nephrectomy.

Rizk El-Galley1, Nedra Hood, Carlton J Young, Mark Deierhoi, Donald A Urban.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LAP) has been gaining more popularity among kidney donors and transplant surgeons. There have been some concerns about the function of kidney grafts harvested by laparoscopic procedures. We report our results of LAP.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective data were collected for our donor nephrectomy operations. A telephone survey was done by an independent investigator on the impact of surgery on quality of life. Graft function was also evaluated by serial serum creatinine and mercaptoacetyltriglycine renal nuclear scans.
RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were included in the study; of whom 55 underwent open donor nephrectomy (OD), 28 underwent LAP and 17 underwent hand assisted donor nephrectomy (HAL). Mean patient age was 39 +/- 12 years and it was similar in all groups. Mean operative time was 306 +/- 40 minutes for LAP, 294 +/- 42 minutes for HAL and 163 +/- 24 minutes for OD (p = 0.001). Laparoscopic operative time was decreased to 180 +/- 56 minutes for LAP and 155 +/- 40 minutes for HAL in the last 10 patients. Mean estimated blood loss was 200 +/- 107 cc for LAP, 167 +/- 70 cc for HAL and 320 +/- 99 cc for OD (p = 0.0001). Mean warm ischemia time was 3 +/- 2 minutes for LAP, 2 +/- 2 minutes for HAL and 2 +/- 1 minutes for OD (p = 0.002). Postoperative hospitalization was 2 +/- 2 days for LAP and 3 +/- 2 days for OD (p = 0.01). LAP required 30% less narcotic medicine than OD postoperatively (p = 0.04). There were no major complications in LAP cases and no complete or partial graft loss was noted. Mean followup was 7 months. Recipient creatinine was not significantly different for kidneys harvested by LAP or OD (p = 0.5). Diuretic mercaptoacetyltriglycine renograms were performed in all recipients 1 to 3 days after surgery and mean effective renal plasma flow was similar for the 3 groups (p = 0.9). According to telephone survey results 85% of LAP, 71% of HAL and 43% of OD patients reported a return to normal physical activity within 4 weeks after surgery. Similarly 74% of LAP, 62% of HAL and 26% of OD patients were able to return to work within 4 weeks after surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data show no significant difference in graft function between LAP and OD. LAP and HAL were safe and complications were minimal. The main difference was that patients treated with LAP and HAL returned to normal physical activity and work significantly earlier than those who underwent OD.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14665839     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000100149.76079.89

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  19 in total

1.  Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy in living donors: safety and reproducibility of the technique in a single center.

Authors:  Olivier Soubrane; Daniel Cherqui; Olivier Scatton; Fabien Stenard; Denis Bernard; Sophie Branchereau; Hélène Martelli; Frédéric Gauthier
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  Single port donor nephrectomy.

Authors:  David B Leeser; James Wysock; S Elena Gimenez; Sandip Kapur; Joseph Del Pizzo
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2011-03-12       Impact factor: 1.355

Review 3.  Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy for kidney transplantation: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lingping Wang; Li Zhu; Xubiao Xie; Haifeng Wang; Hui Yin; Chunhua Fang; Helong Dai
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 4.060

4.  Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, complications and management: a single center experience.

Authors:  Volkan Tuğcu; Selçuk Şahin; İsmail Yiğitbaşı; Nevzat Can Şener; Fatih Gökhan Akbay; Ali İhsan Taşçı
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2017-01-06

5.  Back-to-back comparison of mini-open vs. laparoscopic technique for living kidney donation.

Authors:  Christie Rampersad; Premal Patel; Joshua Koulack; Thomas McGregor
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 1.862

6.  A randomized, prospective, parallel group study of laparoscopic versus laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomy for kidney donation.

Authors:  M J Aull; C Afaneh; M Charlton; D Serur; M Douglas; P J Christos; S Kapur; J J Del Pizzo
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2014-06-16       Impact factor: 8.086

7.  Donor complications following laparoscopic compared to hand-assisted living donor nephrectomy: an analysis of the literature.

Authors:  Whitney R Halgrimson; Jeffrey Campsen; M Susan Mandell; Mara A Kelly; Igal Kam; Michael A Zimmerman
Journal:  J Transplant       Date:  2010-01-06

8.  A Comparative Study of Laparoscopic with Conventional Open Donor Nephrectomy in Renal Transplantation.

Authors:  T Sinha; P P Varma; A Srivastava; S C Karan; A S Sandhu; G S Sethi; R Khanna; R Talwar; V Narang
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2011-07-21

9.  Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Are ten cases per year enough to reach the quality standards? A report from a single small-volume transplant center.

Authors:  S Saad; A Paul; J Treckmann; A Tarabichi; M Nagelschmidt; W Arns
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-07-25       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  A comparison of hand-assisted and pure laparoscopic techniques in live donor nephrectomy.

Authors:  Anibal Wood Branco; William Kondo; Alcides José Branco Filho; Marco Aurélio de George; Marlon Rangel; Luciano Carneiro Stunitz
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 2.365

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.