Literature DB >> 15887792

Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open nephrectomies in living donors.

Amer Rajab1, John E Mahoney, Mitchell L Henry, Elmahdi A Elkhammas, Ginny L Bumgardner, Ronald M Ferguson, Ronald P Pelletier.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Shortages of cadaveric kidneys for transplant into rising numbers of patients with end-stage renal failure have increased the demand for kidneys from live donors. The morbidity associated with traditional open donor nephrectomies (ODN) may discourage many candidates. The newer laparoscopic technique has been promoted as having less morbidity.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomies (HALN) and prospectively compare HALN and ODN.
METHODS: After retrospectively reviewing donor and recipient outcomes in 33 HALN (December through August, 2000), we prospectively compared another 47 with 30 ODN performed from September 2000 through April 2001.
RESULTS: All 80 HALN were successful, with no requirement to convert to an open procedure. Four donors experienced surgery-related complications: wound infection, retroperitoneal hematoma, prolonged ileus and early small-bowel obstruction, respectively. Two recipients had ureteral complications (1 stricture, 1 leak); 5 experienced delayed graft function, 2 requiring dialysis; and 2 kidneys were lost from infarction. The prospective comparison showed the operative time for HALN (mean 184 min, standard deviation [SD] 39 min) was significantly longer (143 [SD 27] min, p < 0.01), but resulted in less blood loss (p < 0.05). Lengths of time to warm ischemia/early graft function, resumption of oral intake/first bowel movement, and hospital discharge were similar. The abdominal-wall laxity and loss of cutaneous sensation from the flank incision experienced by many ODN patients after was uncommon in the HALN group. Three months after nephrectomy, donor complaints of incisional pain were less common after HALN (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: HALN had good outcomes for donors and recipients, with quicker, more complete recoveries 3 months afterward.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15887792      PMCID: PMC3211609     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Surg        ISSN: 0008-428X            Impact factor:   2.089


  19 in total

Review 1.  The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a systematic review.

Authors:  T L Merlin; D F Scott; M M Rao; D R Wall; D M Francis; F H Bridgewater; G J Maddern
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2000-12-27       Impact factor: 4.939

2.  A survey: the prevalence of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy at large U.S. transplant centers.

Authors:  F C Finelli; E Góngora; T M Sasaki; J A Light
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2001-06-27       Impact factor: 4.939

3.  Manual specimen retrieval without a pneumoperitoneum preserving device for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy.

Authors:  Arieh L Shalhav; Tiberio M Siqueira; Thomas A Gardner; Ryan F Paterson; Larry H Stevens
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  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

5.  Elevated intra-abdominal pressure and renal function.

Authors:  P K Harman; I L Kron; H D McLachlan; A E Freedlender; S P Nolan
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1982-11       Impact factor: 12.969

6.  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

7.  Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: advantages of the hand-assisted method.

Authors:  D P Slakey; J C Wood; D Hender; R Thomas; S Cheng
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  1999-08-27       Impact factor: 4.939

8.  Living donor nephrectomy: factors influencing morbidity.

Authors:  T DeMarco; M Amin; J I Harty
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1982-06       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Living related kidney donors. A 14-year experience.

Authors:  J F Dunn; W A Nylander; R E Richie; H K Johnson; R C MacDonell; J L Sawyers
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1986-06       Impact factor: 12.969

10.  Experience with live donor nephrectomy.

Authors:  S H Weinstein; R J Navarre; S A Loening; R J Corry
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1980-09       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  4 in total

1.  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

2.  Laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy: outcomes analysis of 266 consecutive patients.

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

3.  Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Nephrectomy and Auto-Transplantation for a Hilar Renal Artery Aneurysm: A Case Report.

Authors:  Min Jung Kim; Kyo Won Lee; Jae Berm Park; Sung Joo Kim
Journal:  Vasc Specialist Int       Date:  2017-06-30

4.  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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.