BACKGROUND: We compared the results of hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN) and conventional open living donor nephrectomy (OLDN). METHODS: The clinical data on 49 hand-assisted LLDN and 21 OLDN on the left side performed at two institutions in Korea from January 2001 to February 2003 were reviewed. Demographic data of donors and recipients were similar in the two groups. RESULTS: There was one conversion to an open procedure due to bleeding in the LLDN group. The median operation times (180 min in LLDN versus 170 min in OLDN) and warm ischemic times (2.5 min in LLDN versus 2.0 min in OLDN) in the two groups were similar. The estimated mean blood loss, duration of hospital stay and complication rate was also similar in the two groups. The LLDN group reported less pain (visual analog scale) postoperatively (4.1 versus 5.3), but this was not significant (P=0.058). The time to oral intake in the LLDN group was significantly longer by an average of 1 day (P=0.001). Return to work was sooner in the LLDN group (4.0 weeks versus 6.0 weeks; P=0.026). The recipient graft function was equivalent between the two groups. Hand-assisted LLDN appears to be a safe and effective alternative to OLDN. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that this technique may give the ability provide grafts of similar quality to OLDN, while extending to the donors the advantages of a traditional LLDN procedure.
BACKGROUND: We compared the results of hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN) and conventional open living donor nephrectomy (OLDN). METHODS: The clinical data on 49 hand-assisted LLDN and 21 OLDN on the left side performed at two institutions in Korea from January 2001 to February 2003 were reviewed. Demographic data of donors and recipients were similar in the two groups. RESULTS: There was one conversion to an open procedure due to bleeding in the LLDN group. The median operation times (180 min in LLDN versus 170 min in OLDN) and warm ischemic times (2.5 min in LLDN versus 2.0 min in OLDN) in the two groups were similar. The estimated mean blood loss, duration of hospital stay and complication rate was also similar in the two groups. The LLDN group reported less pain (visual analog scale) postoperatively (4.1 versus 5.3), but this was not significant (P=0.058). The time to oral intake in the LLDN group was significantly longer by an average of 1 day (P=0.001). Return to work was sooner in the LLDN group (4.0 weeks versus 6.0 weeks; P=0.026). The recipient graft function was equivalent between the two groups. Hand-assisted LLDN appears to be a safe and effective alternative to OLDN. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that this technique may give the ability provide grafts of similar quality to OLDN, while extending to the donors the advantages of a traditional LLDN procedure.
Authors: Hyun-Chang Kim; Jun-Yeol Bae; Tae Kyong Kim; Yunseok Jeon; Jeong Jin Min; Eui-Kyoung Goo; Deok Man Hong Journal: J Int Med Res Date: 2015-12-21 Impact factor: 1.671