3.8 Article

Ex vivo Renal Bench Pyelolithotomy for Renal Calculi in Live Related Kidney Transplant: A Prospective Observational Study

期刊

INDIAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 366-370

出版社

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/ijot.ijot_10_21

关键词

Bench pyelolithotomy; donor nephrectomy; renal transplant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presented a case series of 15 Bench Pyelolithotomy procedures on renal graft, demonstrating that ex vivo Bench Surgery is safe, less time-consuming, and equally effective for stone-bearing renal donor kidneys without compromising renal allograft function.
Background and Objectives: Bench surgery performed just after donor nephrectomy is known as ex vivo Bench Surgery. We present a case series of Bench Pyelolithotomy in donor's kidney just before transplantation with our surgical experience and follow-up results. Patients and Methods: Fifteen ex vivo Bench Pyelolithotomy on renal graft was performed by an experienced surgeon from January 2018 to August 2020. All these patients underwent standard donor evaluation and metabolic workup. Pre- and post-operative parameters were analyzed for technical feasibility, intraoperative and postoperative complications, stone clearance, and stone recurrence rate. Results: All 15 donors were females with a mean age of 44 years. The mean stone size was 14.3 mm (range 5-30 mm). Stone extraction by pyelolithotomy on the bench was successfully performed, and a stone-free status was accomplished just before the transplantation. Complete stone clearance was achieved in all cases. Mean cold ischemia time was 32 min. Postoperatively, patients were stable with average urine output of 490 ml/h. All patients are in regular follow-up with graft functioning well measured with respect to serial serum creatinine and urine output. Conclusions: Bench surgery is safe, less time-consuming, and equally effective for a stone-bearing renal donor kidney without compromising renal allograft function.

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

3.8
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