Literature DB >> 19664877

Laparo-endoscopic single site (LESS) versus standard laparoscopic left donor nephrectomy: matched-pair comparison.

David Canes1, Andre Berger, Monish Aron, Ricardo Brandina, David A Goldfarb, Daniel Shoskes, Mihir M Desai, Inderbir S Gill.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laparo-endoscopic single site (LESS) surgery is a recent development in minimally invasive surgery. Presented herein is the initial comparison of LESS donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN) and standard laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN).
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether LESS-DN provides any measurable benefit over LLDN during the perioperative period and subsequent convalescence. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Between November 2007 and November 2008, 18 consecutive patients underwent LESS-DN (17 left DN, 1 right DN). A contemporary matched-pair cohort of 17 patients undergoing standard LLDN was selected for retrospective comparison.
INTERVENTIONS: LESS-DN was performed through an intraumbilical novel multichannel port. The kidney was extracted through a slightly extended umbilical incision. MEASUREMENTS: All data were prospectively accrued in an institutional review board-approved database. Convalescence data included visual analog pain scores and questionnaires containing patient-reported time to recovery end points. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: One right-sided donor was converted to standard laparoscopy and excluded from analysis. Baseline demographics, operating time, blood loss, and hospital stay were comparable between groups. Compared to LLDN, patients undergoing LESS-DN had similar in-hospital analgesic requirements and mean visual analog scores at discharge. After discharge, patient-reported convalescence was faster in the LESS-DN group, including days on oral pain medication (20 vs 6; p=0.01), days off work (46 vs 18; p=0.0009), and days to 100% physical recovery (83 vs 29; p=0.03). Mean warm ischemia time was longer in the LESS-DN group (3 vs 6.1 min; p<0.0001); however, allograft function was immediate and comparable between groups. One allograft in the LESS-DN group thrombosed postoperatively. Regardless of laparoscopic approach, patients' global satisfaction with kidney donation and willingness to recommend their procedure to others were favorable and equivalent between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective matched-pair comparison between LESS-DN and LLDN suggests that the single-port approach may be associated with quicker convalescence. In this initial series, LESS-DN had longer ischemia time, yet early allograft outcomes were comparable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19664877     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.07.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  74 in total

Review 1.  Pure single-port laparoscopic surgery or mix of techniques?

Authors:  Evangelos Liatsikos; Iason Kyriazis; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Minh Do; Anja Dietel; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-10-21       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Comparison of endoscopic task performance with crossed versus uncrossed straight and curved instruments through a single port.

Authors:  Roberto Rimonda; Benjie Tang; Stuart I Brown; Alfred Cuschieri
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-06-08       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  New trends in minimally invasive urological surgery: what is beyond the robot?

Authors:  Salvatore Micali; Giovannalberto Pini; Dogu Teber; Maria Chiara Sighinolfi; Stefano De Stefani; Giampaolo Bianchi; Jens Rassweiler
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2010-09-02       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS™) versus standard laparoscopic surgery: a comparison of performance using a surgical simulator.

Authors:  Byron F Santos; Daniel Enter; Nathaniel J Soper; Eric S Hungness
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-06-29       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  The role of single-incision laparoscopic surgery in abdominal and pelvic surgery: a systematic review.

Authors:  Kamran Ahmed; Tim T Wang; Vanash M Patel; Kamal Nagpal; James Clark; Mariam Ali; Samer Deeba; Hutan Ashrafian; Ara Darzi; Thanos Athanasiou; Paraskevas Paraskeva
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-07-10       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Single-port laparoscopic total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: initial operative experience.

Authors:  Daniel P Geisler; Hasan T Kirat; Feza H Remzi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-01-01       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Analysis of standard multiport versus single-site access for laparoscopic skills training.

Authors:  Daniel R Cox; Wenjing Zeng; Margaret M Frisella; L Michael Brunt
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-09-25       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  A randomized, prospective study of laparoendoscopic single-site plus one-port versus mini laparoscopic technique for live donor nephrectomy.

Authors:  Kyu Won Lee; Sae Woong Choi; Yong Hyun Park; Woong Jin Bae; Yong Sun Choi; U-Syn Ha; Sung-Hoo Hong; Ji Youl Lee; Sae Woong Kim; Hyuk Jin Cho
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  Robotic kidney implantation for kidney transplantation: initial experience.

Authors:  Monika E Hagen; Francois Pugin; Pascal Bucher; Jean Fasel; Sheraz Markar; Philippe Morel
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2010-10-21

10.  Laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal cell cancer in patients with increased comorbidities and previous abdominal surgery: preliminary results of a single-centre retrospective study.

Authors:  Christopher Springer; Antonino Inferrera; Felix Kawan; André Schumann; Paolo Fornara; Francesco Greco
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-12-16       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.