Literature DB >> 22071829

Laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy for live kidney donors.

Colin H Wilson1, Aliu Sanni, David A Rix, Naeem A Soomro.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Waiting lists for kidney transplantation continue to grow and live organ donation has become more important as the number of brain stem dead cadaveric organ donors continues to fall. The major disincentive to potential kidney donors is the pain and morbidity associated with open surgery.
OBJECTIVES: To identify the benefits and harms of using laparoscopic compared to open nephrectomy techniques to recover kidneys from live organ donors. SEARCH
METHODS: We searched the online databases CENTRAL (in The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to January 2010) and EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2010) and handsearched textbooks and reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) with open donor nephrectomy (ODN). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility, assessed study quality, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information where necessary. MAIN
RESULTS: Six studies were identified that randomised 596 live kidney donors to either LDN or ODN arms. All studies were assessed as having low or unclear risk of bias for selection bias, allocation bias, incomplete outcome data and selective reporting bias. Four of six studies had high risk of bias for blinding. Various different combinations of techniques were used in each study, resulting in heterogeneity in the results. The conversion rate from LDN to ODN ranged from 1% to 1.8%. LDN was generally found to be associated with reduced analgesia use, shorter hospital stay, and faster return to normal physical functioning. The extracted kidney was exposed to longer warm ischaemia periods (2 to 17 minutes) with no associated short-term consequences. ODN was associated with shorter duration of procedure. For those outcomes that could be meta-analysed there were no significant differences between LDN or ODN for perioperative complications (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.47 to 4.59), reoperations (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.09 to 3.64), early graft loss (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.48), delayed graft function (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.30), acute rejection (RR 1.41, 95 % CI 0.87 to 2.27), ureteric complications (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.69 to 3.31), kidney function at one year (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.41) or graft loss at one year (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.15 to 3.85). AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: LDN is associated with less pain compared with open surgery; however, there are equivalent numbers of complications and occurrences of perioperative events that require further intervention. Kidneys obtained using LDN procedures were exposed to longer warm ischaemia periods than ODN-acquired grafts, although this has not been reported as being associated with short-term consequences.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22071829     DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006124.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  40 in total

1.  Surgical team composition has a major impact on effectiveness and costs in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Authors:  Denise M D Özdemir-van Brunschot; Michiel C Warlé; Michel F van der Jagt; Janneke P C Grutters; Sharon B C E van Horne; Heinrich J Kloke; Johannes A van der Vliet; Johan F Langenhuijsen; Frank C d'Ancona
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-11-02       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Accuracy and inter-operator variability of small bowel length measurement at laparoscopy.

Authors:  Benny Gazer; Danny Rosin; Barak Bar-Zakai; Udi Willenz; Ofer Doron; Mordechai Gutman; Avinoam Nevler
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-04-13       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Assessing the effects of modality of surgery on postoperative weight loss in patients undergoing partial nephrectomy.

Authors:  Homayoun Zargar; Oktay Akca; Peter Caputo; Daniel Ramirez; Onder Kara; Hiury S Andrade; Robert J Stein; Jihad H Kaouk
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 4.226

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.  FLS tasks can be used as an ergonomic discriminator between laparoscopic and robotic surgery.

Authors:  Ahmed M Zihni; Ikechukwu Ohu; Jaime A Cavallo; Jenny Ousley; Sohyung Cho; Michael M Awad
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Ergonomic analysis of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic procedures.

Authors:  Ahmed M Zihni; Ikechukwu Ohu; Jaime A Cavallo; Sohyung Cho; Michael M Awad
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-06-14       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 7.  Comparison of the laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy: an overview of surgical complications and outcome.

Authors:  H Fonouni; A Mehrabi; M Golriz; M Zeier; B P Müller-Stich; P Schemmer; J Werner
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2014-04-28       Impact factor: 3.445

8.  Matched-pair analysis of renal function in the immediate postoperative period: a comparison of living kidney donors versus patients nephrectomized for renal cell cancer.

Authors:  Daniel Vergho; Maximilian Burger; Moritz Schrammel; Sabine Brookman-May; Michael Gierth; Bernd Hoschke; Kai Lopau; Christian Gilfrich; Hubertus Riedmiller; Ingmar Wolff; Matthias May
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-10-25       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  Back-to-back comparison of mini-open vs. laparoscopic technique for living kidney donation.

Authors:  Christie Rampersad; Premal Patel; Joshua Koulack; Thomas McGregor
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 10.  Pushing the Envelope: Laparoscopic Nephrectomy as Outpatient Surgery.

Authors:  Nessn H Azawi; Tom Christensen; Claus Dahl; Lars Lund
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2018-01-27       Impact factor: 3.092

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.