OBJECTIVES: To determine the best approach for live donor nephrectomy to minimise discomfort to the donor and to provide good graft function. DESIGN: Single blind, randomised controlled trial. SETTING:Two university medical centres, the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 100 living kidney donors. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or to mini incision muscle splitting open donor nephrectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was physical fatigue using the multidimensional fatigue inventory 20 (MFI-20). Secondary outcomes were physical function using the SF-36, hospital stay after surgery, pain, operating times, recipient graft function, and graft survival. RESULTS: Conversions did not occur. Compared with mini incision open donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy resulted in longer skin to skin time (median 221 v 164 minutes, P < 0.001), longer warm ischaemia time (6 v 3 minutes, P < 0.001), less blood loss (100 v 240 ml, P < 0.001), and a similar number of complications (intraoperatively 12% v 6%, P = 0.49, postoperatively both 6%). After laparoscopic nephrectomy, donors required less morphine (16 v 25 mg, P = 0.005) and shorter hospital stay (3 v 4 days, P = 0.003). During one year's follow-up mean physical fatigue was less (difference - 1.3, 95% confidence interval - 2.4 to - 0.1) and physical function was better (difference 6.2, 2.0 to 10.3) after laparoscopic nephrectomy. Function of the graft and graft survival rate of the recipient at one year censored for death did not differ (100% after laparoscopic nephrectomy and 98% after open nephrectomy). CONCLUSIONS:Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy results in a better quality of life compared with mini incision open donor nephrectomy but equal safety and graft function.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To determine the best approach for live donor nephrectomy to minimise discomfort to the donor and to provide good graft function. DESIGN: Single blind, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Two university medical centres, the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 100 living kidney donors. INTERVENTIONS:Participants were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or to mini incision muscle splitting open donor nephrectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was physical fatigue using the multidimensional fatigue inventory 20 (MFI-20). Secondary outcomes were physical function using the SF-36, hospital stay after surgery, pain, operating times, recipient graft function, and graft survival. RESULTS: Conversions did not occur. Compared with mini incision open donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy resulted in longer skin to skin time (median 221 v 164 minutes, P < 0.001), longer warm ischaemia time (6 v 3 minutes, P < 0.001), less blood loss (100 v 240 ml, P < 0.001), and a similar number of complications (intraoperatively 12% v 6%, P = 0.49, postoperatively both 6%). After laparoscopic nephrectomy, donors required less morphine (16 v 25 mg, P = 0.005) and shorter hospital stay (3 v 4 days, P = 0.003). During one year's follow-up mean physical fatigue was less (difference - 1.3, 95% confidence interval - 2.4 to - 0.1) and physical function was better (difference 6.2, 2.0 to 10.3) after laparoscopic nephrectomy. Function of the graft and graft survival rate of the recipient at one year censored for death did not differ (100% after laparoscopic nephrectomy and 98% after open nephrectomy). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy results in a better quality of life compared with mini incision open donor nephrectomy but equal safety and graft function.
Authors: M Y Lind; Y S Liem; W A Bemelman; P M M Dooper; W C J Hop; W Weimar; J N M Ijzermans Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2003-02-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: May Y Lind; Eric J Hazebroek; Wim C J Hop; Willem Weimar; H Jaap Bonjer; Jan N M IJzermans Journal: Transplantation Date: 2002-10-15 Impact factor: 4.939
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
Authors: Niels F M Kok; Ian P J Alwayn; May Y Lind; Khe T C Tran; Willem Weimar; Jan N M IJzermans Journal: Transplantation Date: 2006-03-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: F J Berends; P T den Hoed; H J Bonjer; G Kazemier; I van Riemsdijk; W Weimar; J N M IJzermans Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2002-02-27 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Kent T Perry; Stephen J Freedland; Jim C Hu; Michael W Phelan; Blaine Kristo; Albin H Gritsch; Jacob Rajfer; Peter G Schulam Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Karolin Thiel; Christian Thiel; Martin Schenk; Ruth Ladurner; Silvio Nadalin; Nils Heyne; Alfred Königsrainer; Wolfgang Steurer Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2011-11-30 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Andreas Paul; Jürgen Treckmann; Anja Gallinat; Oliver Witzke; Udo Vester; Christoph E Broelsch Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2007-05-26 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: A C Harbin; G Bandi; A A Vora; X Cheng; V Stanford; K McGeagh; J Murdock; R Ghasemian; J Lynch; F Bedell; M Verghese; J J Hwang Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2013-06-05
Authors: Mark Sawatzky; Abdulmalik Altaf; James Ellsmere; Dennis Klassen; Mark Walsh; Michele Molinari; Björn Nashan; Jaap Bonjer Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-09-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Joo Mee Kim; Won Jun Jeong; Byung Jo Choi; Seung Mo Yuk; Jeong Kye Hwang; Sang Chul Lee Journal: Ann Surg Treat Res Date: 2015-10-28 Impact factor: 1.859