Kyu Won Lee1, Sae Woong Choi1, Yong Hyun Park1, Woong Jin Bae1, Yong Sun Choi2, U-Syn Ha1, Sung-Hoo Hong1, Ji Youl Lee1, Sae Woong Kim1, Hyuk Jin Cho3. 1. Department of Urology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Urology, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Urology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea. a0969@catholic.ac.kr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of laparoendoscopic single-site plus one-port donor nephrectomy (LESSOP-DN) and mini laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (MLDN). METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from December 2014 to February 2016 in donors scheduled for left donor nephrectomy. Donor and recipient demographics and clinical outcomes including pain scores and questionnaires (BIQ: body image questionnaire, SF-36, patient-reported overall convalescence) were also compared. RESULTS: A total of 121 eligible donors were recruited, of which 99 donors who were scheduled to undergo an operation on their left side were randomized intoLESSOP-DN (n = 50) and MLDN (n = 49) groups. There were no significant demographic differences between the two groups. The renal extraction time in the LESS-DN group was shorter than that in the MLDN group (75.89 ± 13.01 vs. 87.31 ± 11.38 min, p < 0.001). Other perioperative parameters and complication rates were comparable between the two groups. The LESSOP-DN group had a smaller incision length than the MLDN group (4.89 ± 0.68 vs. 6.21 ± 1.11 cm, p < 0.001), but cosmetic scores and body image scores were similar in the two groups (p = 0.905, 0.217). Donor quality of life (SF-36) and recovery and satisfaction data were comparable between the two groups. Delayed graft function (DGF) occurred in one recipient undergoing MLDN procedure (2.1%) and progressed to graft failure. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in cosmetic satisfaction between groups despite the smaller incision size of LESSOP-DN. Safety parameters and subjective measures of postoperative morbidity were similar between the two groups.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of laparoendoscopic single-site plus one-port donor nephrectomy (LESSOP-DN) and mini laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (MLDN). METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from December 2014 to February 2016 in donors scheduled for left donor nephrectomy. Donor and recipient demographics and clinical outcomes including pain scores and questionnaires (BIQ: body image questionnaire, SF-36, patient-reported overall convalescence) were also compared. RESULTS: A total of 121 eligible donors were recruited, of which 99 donors who were scheduled to undergo an operation on their left side were randomized into LESSOP-DN (n = 50) and MLDN (n = 49) groups. There were no significant demographic differences between the two groups. The renal extraction time in the LESS-DN group was shorter than that in the MLDN group (75.89 ± 13.01 vs. 87.31 ± 11.38 min, p < 0.001). Other perioperative parameters and complication rates were comparable between the two groups. The LESSOP-DN group had a smaller incision length than the MLDN group (4.89 ± 0.68 vs. 6.21 ± 1.11 cm, p < 0.001), but cosmetic scores and body image scores were similar in the two groups (p = 0.905, 0.217). Donor quality of life (SF-36) and recovery and satisfaction data were comparable between the two groups. Delayed graft function (DGF) occurred in one recipient undergoing MLDN procedure (2.1%) and progressed to graft failure. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in cosmetic satisfaction between groups despite the smaller incision size of LESSOP-DN. Safety parameters and subjective measures of postoperative morbidity were similar between the two groups.
Entities:
Keywords:
Kidney transplantation; Laparoscopy; Minimally invasive surgery
Authors: Francesco Greco; M Raschid Hoda; Antonio Alcaraz; Alexander Bachmann; Oliver W Hakenberg; Paolo Fornara Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-04-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: L F C Dols; J N M Ijzermans; N Wentink; T C K Tran; W C Zuidema; I M Dooper; W Weimar; N F M Kok Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: David Canes; Andre Berger; Monish Aron; Ricardo Brandina; David A Goldfarb; Daniel Shoskes; Mihir M Desai; Inderbir S Gill Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Hyuk Jin Cho; Yong Sun Choi; Woong Jin Bae; Jang Ho Bae; Sung-Hoo Hong; Ji Youl Lee; Sae Woong Kim; Tae-Kon Hwang; Yong-Hyun Cho Journal: Urology Date: 2012-09-29 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Thom E Lobe; Lucian Panait; Giovanni Dapri; Peter M Denk; David Pechman; Luca Milone; Stefan Scholz; Bethany J Slater Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-08-19 Impact factor: 3.453