4.6 Article

Morbidity and Mortality in 1022 Consecutive Living Donor Nephrectomies: Benefits of a Living Donor Registry

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 88, 期 11, 页码 1273-1279

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181bb44fd

关键词

Kidney; Donor; Nephrectomy; Complications

资金

  1. Norwegian Foundation for Health and Rehabilitation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. We assessed postoperative complication rates in living donor nephrectornies (LDN) during the last decade (1997-2008). Methods. Postoperative complications were classified by the Clavien grading system. We defined Clavien grade more than or equal to 3 as major complications. A total of 1022 LDNs performed during the period 1997-2008 were included. Results. Median age at donation was 47.7 years (range 18.4-78.9), and mean body mass index was 25.4 (SD 3.2). There was no peri- or postoperative mortality. Laparoscopic nephrectomy was performed in 244 (23.9%) donors. Three of these needed surgical conversion. A total of 30 major (2.9%) and 184 (18%) minor complications were registered. There was a higher frequency of major complications in the laparoscopic group (4.1% vs. 2.6%), but the difference was not statistically significant. Twenty-three donors underwent early re-operations. Wound infection developed in 3.7% of donors. Increased risk was associated with body mass index more than 25 (OR 4.03; 95% CI 1.80, 9.04) and smoking (OR 4.38; 95% CI 2.30, 9.96). Significant perioperative bleeding occurred in 1.6%. There were seven cases of renal artery laceration. Increased risk for a combined endpoint of intraoperative incidents, major complications and significant bleeding were seen in relation to laparoscopic surgery (OR 2.63; 95% CI 1.33, 5.19). Conclusion. The risk of major complications related to LDN is low, but do represent a potential hazard to the donor. The special nature of LDN and the constantly evolving operative technique requires vigilant surveillance, by the use of national or supranational registries/databases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据