4.6 Article

Single port transumbilical (E-NOTES) donor nephrectomy

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 180, 期 2, 页码 637-641

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.04.028

关键词

laparoscopy; nephrectomy; surgical procedures; minimally invasive

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We present the initial 4 patients undergoing single port transumbilical live donor nephrectomy. Scar-free abdominal surgery via natural body orifices is called NOTES (natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery). In a similar manner the umbilicus, an embryonic (E) natural orifice, permits abdominal access with hidden scar of entry. We propose the term E-NOTES for embryonic natural orifice transumbilical endoscopic surgery. Materials and Methods: Through an intra-umbilical incision a novel single access tri-lumen R-port was inserted into the abdomen. No extra-umbilical skin incisions were made whatsoever. A 2 mm Veress needle port, inserted via skin needle puncture to establish pneumoperitoneum, was used to selectively insert a needlescopic grasper for tissue retraction. Donor kidney was pre-entrapped and extracted transumbilically. Results: E-NOTES donor nephrectomy was successful in all 4 patients. Median operating time was 3.3 hours, blood loss was 50 cc, warm ischemia time was 6.2 minutes and hospital stay was 3 days. Median length of harvested renal artery was 3.3 cm, renal. vein 4 cm and ureter 15 cm. No intraoperative complications occurred. Donor visual analog scores were 0/10 at 2 weeks. Each allograft functioned immediately on transplantation. Conclusions: The initial experience with E-NOTES donor nephrectomy is encouraging. Excellent donor vascular and tissue dissection could be performed, and a quality donor kidney was retrieved transumbilically without any extra-umbilical skin incision. E-NOTES donor nephrectomy appears to have relevance and promise, especially for this typically younger,. altruistic population. Natural orifices present an unprecedented opportunity for scar-free surgery.

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