Literature DB >> 15257054

Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy in comparison to open and laparoscopic procedures: a prospective study on donor morbidity and kidney function.

Pernilla Sundqvist1, Ulla Feuk, Mikael Häggman, A Erik G Persson, Mats Stridsberg, Jonas Wadström.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Living donor nephrectomy (LDN) is a unique surgical challenge where surgery is performed on a healthy individual. A new hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy (HARS) technique was compared to transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy (LAP) and open nephrectomy (OPEN). The aim was to examine the perioperative and postoperative morbidity, and the effects of the different surgical techniques with regard to renal function.
METHODS: Donors (n=36) were divided into three groups (HARS, LAP and OPEN) according to surgical technique. During the operations, renal function, hormone output, warm ischemia time (WIT) and operating time were recorded. Renal function, complications, convalescence and allograft outcome were followed postoperatively for one year.
RESULTS: OPEN and HARS groups showed similar operation times: 150 (95-218) minutes and 145 (124-225) minutes, respectively. LAP procedures took longer: 218 (163-280) minutes. OPEN had the shortest WIT at 91 (55-315) seconds; LAP had the longest WIT at 207 (100-319) seconds, with HARS at 180 (85-240) seconds. In all groups, glomerular filtration rate and urine production were decreased during surgery. Endoscopic techniques had a higher catecholamine release, and OPEN donors showed higher serum aldosterone. Endoscopic techniques showed shorter convalescence and less postoperative pain compared to OPEN. HARS had a smaller rise in creatinine than LAP, and HARS recipients a better creatinine clearance than the other groups in the early posttransplantation period.
CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of HARS shows that the operation is quick, the donors experience little pain, and recovery time is short. The renal function for donors and recipients is somewhat favorable to open surgery and transperitoneal laparoscopic approaches.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15257054     DOI: 10.1097/01.tp.0000133280.74695.34

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transplantation        ISSN: 0041-1337            Impact factor:   4.939


  10 in total

Review 1.  [Ten years of laparoscopic living kidney donation. From an extravagant to a routine procedure].

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

2.  Retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy: donor outcome and complication rate in comparison with three different techniques.

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

Review 3.  Minimally invasive donor nephrectomy: current state of the art.

Authors:  Nicole M Shockcor; Sam Sultan; Josue Alvarez-Casas; Philip S Brazio; Michael Phelan; John C LaMattina; Rolf N Barth
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2018-08-21       Impact factor: 3.445

4.  Pure versus hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a retrospective cohort study of 1508 transplants from two centers.

Authors:  Hiroshi Noguchi; Yoichi Kakuta; Masayoshi Okumi; Kazuya Omoto; Yasuhiro Okabe; Hideki Ishida; Masafumi Nakamura; Kazunari Tanabe
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-03-19       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: HARP-trial.

Authors:  Leonienke F C Dols; Niels F M Kok; Turkan Terkivatan; T C Khe Tran; Frank C H d'Ancona; Johan F Langenhuijsen; Ingrid R A M zur Borg; Ian P J Alwayn; Mark P Hendriks; Ine M Dooper; Willem Weimar; Jan N M Ijzermans
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2010-03-25       Impact factor: 2.102

6.  Retroperitoneoscopic Standard or Hand-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Standard or Hand-Assisted Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and the First Network Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Paschalis Gavriilidis; Vassilios Papalois
Journal:  J Clin Med Res       Date:  2020-11-03

7.  Transition from laparoscopic to retroperitoneoscopic approach for live donor nephrectomy.

Authors:  Zi Qin Ng; Gabrielle Musk; Alethea Rea; Bulang He
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Authors:  Nitin Gupta; Pamposh Raina; Anant Kumar
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 1.407

9.  Living donor of the kidney-open-video.

Authors:  Jens G Brockmann; Norbert Senninger; Heiner H Wolters
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2007-03-21       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 10.  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
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.